i guess if i had one regret i guess it only took us two years to get here. but better let than never, senator mikulski, so tomorrow is another day. on a more personal note, i lost both my sisters to breast cancer. my only two sisters. . at a fairly young age. when my older sister died and we went to her funeral, her younger sister, sylvia, was there, and had no idea that she also had breast cancer. within two years she was dead also. and they left young families. they lived in rural areas, small towns. they didn't have any money. they didn't really have health care coverage. for them to go to get a checkup would have cost money. money that they could ill afford

at that time. -- at that time. they had a number of kids. as i said they didn't have a lot of money. they didn't have health care benefits. it would have been different if they could have had this available to them. early checkups, early screenings. for both of them it was way too late by the time they discovered it. so this has a very personal, poignant meaning to me. i just hope that women in this country now will take advantage of this. and will now go and get those annual screenings and get those checkups. early detection, early detection we know works. and millions of lives can be saved. as senator mikulski said, families, families will not have to lose a parent or a sister because of breast cancer or cervical cancer, all the others.

so when i hear republicans say, and they still say they want to repeal this, and they want to take this away from women, i stand with senator mikulski. not as long as we are here. senator landrieu. >> thank you, senator harkin, for your extraordinary leadership and willingness to share such a personal and moving story to underscore the importance of today. i thank senator mikulski for her tireless leadership and enthusiastic leadership in continuing to fight hard for this amendment which was adopted. secretary sebelius for leading the nation at a transformational moment for all of us. the goal of the affordable health care act is to help our nation to become healthy, more healthy, and in being more healthy we can be a more prosperous, economically vital nation.

it is a blessing when the citizens are healthy. and it's truly a blessing when the women of a nation are healthy and the mothers of a nation are healthy. because as senator mikulski pointed out and secretarycy billous -- secretary sebelius, women are the primary caregivers of the nation. the healthier the caregivers are, the better the nation going to be. it makes so much sense. it's a shame this was all illegal until today. so with this legislation, with this government requirement which is important, a partnership with insurance companies, women will be able to get the care they need to stay healthy. tom, your sisters, to raise their children themselves. the cost of having mothers healthy to be able to raise their children as opposed to transferring some of that burden to the society or the town or the community are enormous.

for louisiana the state that i represent, over 600,000 women, senator mikulski, tomorrow, with private insurance, not women on medicare, not women on medicaid, which will benefit as well, but 600,000 women with private insurance will be able to access these services to keep themselves healthy and well. women that are working minimum wage jobs or women that show up at the highest levels of some of the largest companies in louisiana at the corporate level. so this is truly an amazing day. it would not have happened without senator mikulski's leadership and senator harkin. we are all grateful. let's keep our women and mothers healthy. thank you. and senator lautenberg. >> thanks, senator landrieu. i'm pleased to be here with colleagues who have the guts to stand up and fight the battle that women deserve.

that is reasonably good health care. and led by barbara mikulski who always surprises us with her leadership, dynamism, her tenacity, and all of the things that resulted and where we stand on this health care bill right now. can you imagine what would have happened just february when one of our colleagues in the senate decided to bring up an amendment that would strike the women's health care section out of the reform bill. now, what would have happened if at the same time a woman came in there and said, you know what, i think we ought to stop pros state screening for men -- prostate screening for men, what do you think would happen? we might get a response to that. the fact of the matter is that there's a group trying to decide

what women ought to be doing for themselves and their families. now there is a chief honcho as you know as the owely garky group, his name is romney, he's resolved to repeal health care, to start repealing it the first day that he has office. well, we are saying, too bad. you don't know barbara mikulski and her following, all of us salute when she comes in the room because she deserves our respect, our affection, and our thanks. i have five daughters, five daughters and six granddaughters. i want them to keep their mitts off my kids. and off my grandchildren. simple as that. we'll continue to fight the fight led by barbara mikulski, led by secretary sebelius and my other colleagues here. be ready. tell those guys on the other

side, tomorrow is a new dawn coming and we are going to keep on shining a light on it. thank you very much. >> first, let me tell you on behalf of the people of maryland, and i have the honor of representing, over one million women who benefit from today's announcement in my state. we are proud that we have sent to the united states senate one of the great leaders on gender equity issues in america in senator barbara mikulski. she has been a leader throughout her career on gender equity issues, whether it is fairness with the lily ledbetter act, or preventive health care in the affordable care act. senator mikulski, we thank you on behalf of a grateful nation. the progress that we have made to close the gap on fairness and equality in our health care system. and i want to thank secretary sebelius and i want to thank president obama for taking on

the health care crisis in america and the passage of the affordable care act. our whole nation benefits from it. the fact at long last health care is a right not a privilege, but it's particularly important for women, because rural women are -- more women are uninsured. more women have been deteriorate secretary of stated against in our health care system and the provisions of the affordable care act help to close the gap in fairness ining america on health care. -- fairness in america on health care. secretary sebelius has mentioned some of the provisions that have taken affect. there are no limits on lifetime caps which affected women more than men. in 2015 the annual cap will be gone. we talked about the pre-existing conditions for children. already in effect. women who have been discriminated against are really the poster children for why we need it to eliminate pre-existing conditions. that will end in 2014. higher premiums charged to women

because they are women. that will end. but on august 1, tomorrow, there are new provisions to take effect. i just want to highlight one very quickly. the preyum rebate. so insurance companies have to give value for the premium dollar that takes effect on august 1. once again, women are going to benefit from that provision. i am particularly proud of the preventive health service that is you have heard about. senator mikulski was responsible for the amendment that we put into law. the fact that the institute of medicine would do a study as to what we pren -- preventive services were needed for women and it's their report and recommendation we are now implementing tomorrow that will give women the preventive health care services they need without co-payment. this is an important day. as we continue to make progress in america to provide quality, affordable health care to all the people in the nation. i'm proud to be on senator

mikulski's team w that let me introduce senator shaheen. >> thank you. tomorrow, august 1, is a great day for women and families in this country. because tomorrow the provisions of the affordable care act that are so important to women go into effect. and i want to thank senator mikulski, senator harkin, and all my colleagues here for the work that they put in to making the affordable care act and these provisions the law. the data is very clear. these provisions as senator harkin has so eloquently said, will save lives. opponents may not want to pay for those, but the reality is that because these provisions are going to go into effect tomorrow, that women will be better off, their families will be better off, and as we look at

the underlying cost of health care in the system, we will be more cost-effective with these provisions. so it is great day for women and families. >> i am really proud to follow senator shaheen and to stand today with some of the giants in the senate, and i agree with everything that has been said except i think frank lautenberg said he was -- i think he used the word surprised by senator mikulski's tenacity and tirelessness. as someone whom i have really come to admire, i'm not surprised, but admiring. there are two giants not with us today who stood strong and tall, senator kennedy and senator dodd. and i am very honored to follow senator dodd as the senator from connecticut whose citizens, 270,000 of them, will benefit tomorrow.

they will see this new day and new dawn and it will be a great day for america because it combines equality and quality. it saves lives, but it also saves dollars. for anyone who may be impervious to the life save effect of this measure, let's talk about dollars. prevention and detection save resources and expenses and they will drive down costs as we must do in our health care delivery system. so we are talking here about diabetes screening, cancer screening, basic health screening that means detecting and stopping disease before its costs spiral astronomically out of control. that's a great day for all americans. it's great day for families because when a mom or sister gets sick, the entire family suffers. it is a great day for our health

care delivery system and i think it's a historic day for america because we are saying here today we will not retreat, we will not repeal, we will not reject a step in the right direction showing washington can get things done. we can break this gridlock. we can move forward. and i want to thank my colleagues for their great leadership and introduce someone who has been a champion of health care, senator brown. senator brown: thank you, senator blue men tall. there have been -- blumenthal. there have been a number of heros in this country. some well-known, some not so well-known fight for gender equity. barbara mikulski, nobody has done it longer or better than she has. i was in columbus two days ago with lily ledbetter, someone who stepped up and because of her

fight, women around this contry, especially lower income women are making more money than otherwise and actually earning what they ought to earn. because of her efforts. and i will be introducing in a moment another hero in the fight for equity for gender equity and fight for health care for women, the gentlewoman from ohio. about a year and a half ago i was in toledo and we announced as people across the country announced, the beginning of the -- that began the efforts in medicare on preventive care starting in early 2011. some 600,000, 600,000 to 00,000 women in ohio, senior women in ohio, on medicare began to have preventive services. mammograms, various kinds of -- no co-pay, no deductible, that was the beginning of this. tomorrow in my state, starting tomorrow, 1.8 million women will

have access to these services. notable among them and the story you will hear from ann is not a typical story. a typical story of someone with the courage she's shown, but a story that's all too common. she's the mother of four, as she says four kids and grandmother of 12 kidlets as she says to me. she's from holland. she has a story to tell. she really with all the numbers we cite of one until maryland, 1.8 million in ohio, hundreds of thousands in other states, but she is the reason that we all make these fights. i remember sitting in the health committee with senator mikulski and tom harkin as we wrote some of the preventive elements in this bill and how important they were and the fights that those two made to do the right thing. it is because of people like ann we know are out there caring so much about the community. she's willing with all of her

illnesses over the past she's willing to step up and fight in an ongoing way. she's an activist in toledo and here. aim proud and proud to introduce her. -- i'm proud, and proud to introduce her. >> thank you, senator brown, senator mikulski, it's a pleasure to be here. listening to everybody speak, three minutes is a tough thing to say when you're pleading for human life here, that's what i'm doing. i am a three time survivor of cancer. you live with cancer every day of your life. it doesn't just go away. i have been very fortunate and very blessed. my first bout with cancer was 30 years ago when i was diagnosed with breast cancer. and i did have insurance thankfully. i also had checked myself for 18 years because when i was 18 years old they had found a lump and i was lucky hi a doctor that said do self-examinations and watch out and pay attention to your body. so i did. i did find my lump when i was

about 36 years old. i did have insurance then so i was very lucky. i had double mastectomies and i had eight other surgeries for repair work that was done because of that. it all worked out great. and then in -- that was in 1982. in the year 2000 i was diagnosed with colorectal cancer. i will tell you i had no signs at all until i found a little blood one day. i thought because i paid attention to my body i realized this shouldn't be. so i called the doctor right away. and they did a test on me and found a large tumor that they felt and hi seven different doctors opinions, they all felt that it was a 10-year growth of that tumor. now, i was 55 years old at that time. that was 11 years ago. had i had it at 50 cancer might have been avoided all together. had i had it at 45 i may never had had to go through anything.

thankfully, thankfully i had good insurance at that time because i ended up at washington, d.c., down here at a hospital for a very special procedure that a doctor has taught and did all over the world and i was fortunate enough to be able to get in to him to have the tumor removed, but when it came back malignant, hi to have much more extensive surgery and i went back to columbus ohio and had that because nobody really wanted to work on me in toledo. the expertise wasn't there at that point in time. we come forward into the year 2000 i was rediagnosed with breast cancer. i called my insurance company right away because the insurance i finally got i was denied insurance after my employer had asked me right after my colorectal -- and employer had asked me if i would please go off the insurance because i was costing everybody too much in the company. the figure that he gave me i later without found out it was costing the company, not the individual, but there were several individuals in that company that were carrying a

couple different jobs and there is no way i wanted them to pay extra money because of me. i said of course i would check out for other insurance and i had no idea what i was walking into. i was reduced by -- refused by several inshirnse companies. i finally end upped at open enrollment. my cheapest until i ended up with what i a did was $1650 a month. finally ended up with insurance at about $385. i was on total life exclusion for cancer and respiratory. that came up because apparently through the anesthetic i got a little bit of copd and through the colorectal surgery. i'm denied. in 2010 when this happened when i got redoge knowsed, i called the insurance company right away are you going to cover me? probably not because if it comes back negative you don't meet your deductible. i am not a sick person. i have gotten the pock. i am not a sick person, i do get cancer. i don't know why.

so it came back positive because hi cancer and pre-existing condition, they were not going to cover me. i canceled my insurance right then and there i was paying money and not getting anything back. so luckily i was approved for the bccp program through ohio, which is a breast and cervical cancer program. i was very fortunate because my bills for my one day surgery in and out was almost $40,000. that would -- i'm single. that would have really put me back. i was very fortunate to have that and i'm very glad they took over. i still had about $8,000 to $10,000 of bills on my own but that was a short cry difference from $40,000. to get to that i am just a voice here representing not just thousands but millions of people. women and men. but being a woman, i can't even tell you how much we appreciate what are you doing and how much the impact is going to be on women. most of the people that i know

around me are women fighting cancer. i have a friend fighting bone cancer. she's been fighting it for six years which is a recurrence for breast cancer many years ago. she can't move. she can't get in and out of a car. she can't go out in her backyard and sit in the sun because of the medication. getting out of her bhed is a project in the morning. she could be around for another six to 10, 20 years. because until bone cancer hits your vital organs, you can live with that for a long time. i will tell you it's painful. so if you live in a world of pain and agony and fear and when you hear those words, you got cancer, i will tell you it is a paralyzing moment. and once you get past that moment, you have to decide what to do, because that decision in itself is gigantic. until you make that decision you are in a very black hole. and then you have to move forward and do what you're going to do and make up your mind you are going to get better. but the screening and the testing and learning about your body and being educated is so

very important because most of these cancers can be avoided. i know that i would not have had colorectal cancer if i would have had a colonoscopy before the time i did. it could have been avoided. my breast cancer, it could have been worse had i not noticed it in an early stage. i have been very fortunate. there are thousands there, millions that are not as fortunate. i'm going to throw one thing out. i'm talking about cancer patients now alone, if you take 9/11 and you take a 9/11 every other day of the year, then you have the same amount of people that are dying from cancer in our country. 9/11, it was horrific. it was every expletive you could think of, but these are people that are dying day by day and living with pain and fear and devastation, financial devastation. some losing their families. i do have four kids and i have 12 kidlets. i look at them and i don't want

them to go through the same thing i went through or see many of my friends go through. i lost my brother three months ago and my sister was just diagnosed three weeks ago with melanoma internally. this is tough. it's very tough. so i thank you very much, senator, and all of you that have supported this and are putting this into effect. and i implore upon you with very strong voices to other people that are not putting human life as a top priority. i don't understand how they can't. since they are not. thank you, please take those voices in strong. i would like to introduce marcia greenberg, she's a founder and co-president of the national women's law center. [applause] >> before marcia and judy come up, i just want to thank them and all of the add vow cats because i think -- advocates, because i think you heard ann's

testimony, she's worked with the american cancer society, the cancer action network, the national women's law center, judy and the national partnership for women and families. we couldn't have done it without each other. and we were all in it together. and i want to thank the advocates. of course it's their voice that really brought this to the floor. many nice things were said about me today, but really you have to talk about the people who are in the trenches every day. the people who are affected. the people who give voice to the law, to the statistics, and so on. i want to publicly thank them because we could never have done this without their incredible, incredible work. and ann your compelling personal narrative shows why we will never let them repeal or even try to repeal this bill. and so we will fight it and now one of the great warriors, marcia.

>> thank you so very much, senator mikulski, all of the champions for women's health who are here in this extraordinarily exciting day. and ann, your story, is such an amazing reminder that we are not talking about statistics. we are talking about people. we are talking about the most heartwrenching of health circumstances that can be avoided and certainly ameliorated with access to the health care system, with decent health insurance for every american in this country. that is what the affordable care act promises. with this preventive health care coming in to effect tomorrow for each new plan as it comes on line, the promise for women and

their families is just incalculable. i want to just add a few things to what has already been said so movingly by others who have spoken earlier. first of all, it's actually the 40th anniversary this year of the narble women's law center -- national women's law center. it's step by step by step, every by effort. it has taken this long and longer to reach a day when women's health is not an afterthought. when it isn't an add on. when we aren't trying one service at a time to get included. when the model of health and health care can include women as well as men. and that is really what is so

fundamentally thrilling about what we are on the brink of experiencing. because of this affordable care act and the preventive health care amendment that senator mikulski led towards passage, women are not only not a pre-existing condition, but we have had experts identifying from the get-go, what is it that makes women healthy? what are the services that women need? they need to be included. they need to be a part of what is available in this contry. -- country. not through charity, not through happenchance, but because the law incorporates women's health as one of its fundamental

purposes. the national women's law center a number years ago did a report of the individual market and ann told pretty movingly how difficult it was to be on your own and have to go buy health insurance. and what we found was that women who had to buy insurance were not only charged routinely more than men, as much as 85% more than men, but also that was excluding maternity coverage. excluding contraception. now we will face and meet the day when women are not charged more than men and their health care needs are covered. whether it is counseling services and domestic violence

survivors. whether it is the kind of testing to try to detect gestational diabetes. whether it is the availability of all forms of f.d.a. approved contraceptions so women no longer have to avoid because of the cost the safest and most effective means of contraception. whether it means a well woman visit so that the maternity coverage and follow-up is available for women. these kinds of services are lifesaving. they are recognition of the fact that as has been said, women do have to take care of their health and often are, because of the cost, the first ones to put their health care last as they take care of others.

so as each new plan turns over, and women across this country and their families can really let out a sigh of relief that they will get access to this coverage once and for all, we have a lot to be thankful for, but we know that it didn't come without effort, without fight, without leadership, without determination, and we have to continue all of those efforts to keep this progress in place. one of the things on the banner is a #, her health. and i know there is going to be a lot of tweeting and following through today and tomorrow all of the important aspects of what this new day will bring and what it promises over time. so it is important to stay

involved and stay engaged and stay in the fight so that we continue this progress and make sure that it turns into a reality for every man, every woman, every child in this country. thank you. introduce a dear colleague and dear friend, jew dit lickman from the national partnership for women and families. >> thank you, marshal. thank you senator mikulski, and of course secretarycy billous and all the wonder -- secretary sebelius and all the wonderful champions of the affordable care act and most especially women's health. this law is the greatest advance for women's health in a generation. and tomorrow, august 1, one of its promises becomes a reality. as you have heard for millions

of women who will be healthier as a result. beginning august 1 the affordable care act will insure new insurance plans will cover preventive health care without cost sharing and with no co-pays. that for too long have put these critical services out of reach for so many women like ann. this is one of the most tangible benefits from reform. thanks to the affordable care act, no longer will women go without birth control because they can't afford the co-pays. no longer will women go without h.i.v. and sexually transmitted disease testing they urgently need. no longer will costs prevan hollen pregnant women from being tested for gestational diabetes. no longer will costs prevent new mothers from getting the supplies they need to breast-feed their infant and

give them a healthier start in life. no longer will teens and adults at risk for domestic violence go without potentially lifesaving screening and counseling. it is about time. the affordable care act covers annual breast examines, mammograms, and pap tests at no cost. tomorrow costs cease to be a deterrent to the preventive care that millions of women need and soon reform will outlaw gender discrimination in pricing, at long last. as more benefits roll out we should all focus on implementing a law and ensuring that all women and all americans can access these critical services. to those who try to argue that repealing reform is right for this country and for our families, i say this.

you can't talk fast enough. you can't sow enough confusion or in any way to seize the women of america and the men who care about them. no longer. better care for pregnant and nursing mothers, screening for h.i.v., sexually transmitted infections, and domestic violence, and no cost access to birth control and other preventive services will make women and our families and our country healthier. starting tomorrow, we have the affordable care act and its champions to thank for that. and we thank you. >> senator mikulski had to go to the floor. had some time reserved this morning on the floor to speak about this. she's our leader, so she asked me to try to field any questions if you have any questions.

>> other women health issue in the capital today is the house bill to ban abortions after the 20 week in the district of columbia. what are your reactions on that? b, given the gulf between the two chambers and parties on women's health issues, is that something that will have to be resolved after the election? >> a long time ago, i guess not that long ago, i chaired the committee on district of columbia. i said then, i believe then, and i believe ever since that the congress of the united states should not interfere in the government of the district of columbia. regardless of banning abortions after 20 weeks or whatever it is. this is no business of the u.s. congress. period. >> unanimously declared this regulation to be illegal and unjust mandate.

an injunction was issued -- >> preliminary injunction. >> do you believe that the federal government has the moral right to force cath lick owners to act -- catholic owners to act? >> what i do believe is the obama administration has carved out a very sensible sort of middle ground exception to this. in which churches, religious organizations, certainly are exempted from this, but for-profit businesses that cover a broad variety of people, they don't have to pay in if they don't want to for the individual, but they do have to pay into the health care. it's up to the insurance companies whether or not they want to carry this as a

provision. so i think the exception, the obama administration has come up with, is sensible. i think we also have to keep in mind that a lot of times we talk about birth control or contraception, many times for many young women of childbearing age it's not just to prevent a birth or prevent pregnancy. there are many women who take birth control pills, for example, because they have terrible menstrual cramps once a month, some of them almost incapacitated. can't work. i know of young women myself who because of this are able to work and be productive. and it's prescribed by their doctor. are we now being told a woman has to take that prescription from a doctor and take it and show it to her employer? or show it to her insurance

company about what the diagnosis is? you wouldn't ask anyone to do that. i wouldn't ask any woman to do that, either. so i think that we havele to move ahead on this. -- have to move ahead on this. i don't know what the outcome in the case in colorado will be. i know it's a preliminary injunction while it's decided. i don't know all the facts in the case. i just don't. i do believe we have caved out, the obama administration has caved out a viable exception for religious organizations -- carved out a viable exception for religious organizations. >> i will just say briefly that it is very much in the beginning preliminary injunction stages. i think in you look at any of the legal precedents that this particular provision is well within the legal bounds, as well

as being sensible as senator harkin said. and of course in this particular case a company that is, i believe, installs heating and air conditioning and the like, that is what the company is, ironically enough, of course, for those who happen to work for this company, who never thought they were working for a religious company, it is not a religious organization at all, they are paying in whatever their share of insurance is, and so women need to be able to get access to needed health care just like men can. of course one of the things we have to make sure of is that this does respect women's health needs and women's own religious

principles and beliefs, too. so in the balancing, legal and constitutional molest dents -- precedents take all of this into account and that's why we are quite confident as this case and others move forward that the provisions will be upheld. >> over the last couple years a number of studies have come out regarding the health care debate that recorded that the breast cancer screening, mammograms, prostate screening, these kinds of things have become accepted, they created emotional concerns for people because they were initially positive and then negative. it seems as if this is a response to some of this discussion. these prescreening tests are crucial and necessary. the problem also is that a lot of these studies are coming out of increasing insurance rates. there has to be a regulation on

insurance. i think that the debate on single payer and public option has to be retaken under this consideration. explicitly because what you see with deregulated financial industries, like we saw with the wall street situation, we need fundamental regulation like we need glass-steagall. >> that's a statement not a question. >> the statement on glass-steagall is important, but the question -- the question i'm asking is what are we going to do about the private i shurens companies? what's -- insurance companies? what's going to mandate them -- if we say we need real health care for people, how do you provide affordable health insurance? competition doesn't simply do the job. >> on the changes it will. are you going to have a different system starting in 2014 with the exchanges, with more transparency. with people being able to see what's offered on the exchanges. and what different companies are

offering. quite frankly what's going to happen in 2014 the american people will get what we have here in congress. same kind of thing. every year we have an open season and i think we get, 15 or 20 different plans we can pick and choose from. i know i changed my plan from when i was here just my wife and i. then when we had kids we changed it. then when our kids got older we changed it. when they left, we changed it again. depending on our family situation. most people haven't had that option. now they will in 2014. we hope that that will keep prices down. but i also believe. i believe as strongly as anything, what we are talking about here in terms of moving to more preventive care, early detection, is going to do more, i hate to use this phrase, bend the cost curve than any other single thing we have done. this is part of the women's health care preventive health care is a big part. thanks.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> also on capitol hill today, the house gaveling back in in under 15 minutes. in just over 15 minutes. on the agenda today, 19 bills, including stemming abuse of government credit cards and further limits on abortions in the district of columbia. short speeches at 2:00. legislative work at 3:30. off the floor the house rules committee meets this afternoon. they'll be considering several bills coming up later this week on the house floor, including tax reform, the expiring 2001,

2003 tax cuts, and the farm bill which includes job relief. c-span3 will have live coverage of that coming up at 5:00 p.m. earlier today on capitol hill, the senate foreign relations committee health a -- held a confirmation hearing to the ambassadors to afghanistan and pakistan. here's part of that hearing starting with senator john kerry. >> obviously you are well aware of the cross guards here on the hill with respect to the relationship on pakistan. i met recently with ambassador raymond and others to try to talk it through. obviously they are well aware and i think this most recent step to reopen is an effort to try and settle things down. some people in congress, i think

ill-advisedly, nevertheless some people in congress are advocating a more precipitous kind of reaction to the current state of affairs. some want to suspend aid. some don't think there is a value to it, etc. so could you state to the congress as you go over there, which you will, as ambassador, how you see that, why that would be ill-advised in your judgment and what you see the stakes and also importantly the things you see the pakistanis are doing helpful to us notwithstanding the difficulties we have had in the relationship. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think that our relationship with pakistan is critical to our national security interest. primarily in the area of

counterterrorism and cooperation. over the past decade thanks in significant part to cooperation from pakistan, we are in the position of virtually eliminating al qaeda as a threat to us. and i think that we want to continue to formulate a relationship that allows us to strengthen counterterrorism cooperation. i was also, senator, very pleased that in your opening remarks you mentioned the perception of many pakistanis that the united states had disengaged in the 1990's. i think that's a very important backdrop for our relationship today. i think pakistanis in the government and outside are very concerned about what will happen in afghanistan post 2014.

and as ambassador cunningham indicated, we have put in place over the last year some very strong measures for assuring afghans and indeed the region that we will be engaged after 2014. i think this is also the great significance of the assistance, that provides assistance on a predictable basis. it provides stable basis for ongoing relationship. i think that if we can continue to emphasize to the pakistanis our engagement over time, it will be possible to build the kind of productive relationship based on mutual interests that will serve us over the long term. >> what do you think pakistani attitude is now about the so called network? >> well, sir, with regard to the had a canny -- hakani network,

first of all i think this is one of the toughest challenges that we face. i would say that at a personal level as well as professional level, i have been in the embassy in kabul for the last year, i was there september 13 and april 15 on the two attacks that took place. so i have a certain amount of skin in the game for this particular issue. we do know, of course, that they are based in the north, but the question is how we will address the challenge represented by the hakani presence. we have already taken some actions against the network on the whole of government basis. as you know key network leaders have already been designated as

terrorists, sanctioning their travel and finances. and the question of the designation of that network as a foreign terrorist organization is on secretary clinton -- with secretary clinton right now. we will continue, i can assure you, senator, that this will be a primary focus of my activities and diplomatic engagement with the pakistanis to encourage further measures against the network, further squeezing of the network. >> i look forward to connecting with you when i get out there. i appreciate your observations on it. it's worth a lot more conversation, but thank you for that. am brass door cunningham, -- ambassador cunningham, i assume you had an opportunity to read the piece in the new yorker. can you comment he -- the

recurring nymph articles that seem to be appearing talking about how afghans are planning for the fight. and laying the groundwork for a longer confrontation as we draw down rather than engaging in the fight for the democratic process and rule of law and other things. can you give us your sense of that state of play at this point? >> sure, senator. thank you. i think the -- what we are seeing and have seen for a while as ambassador olson said, there are a lot of people in this region and afghanistan hedging their bets about the future. i think the talk of rearming and reforming of militias is overstated, but the temptation is there and the uncertainty

about how various groups will advance their interests in the future is very much on the table. that's why i said in my statement, as you said in yours, the upcoming political transition is really vitally important. as i said in my statement, this is not a -- it's not an issue of one party or another. it really is an issue for all afghan answer all afghan political actors -- and all afghan political actors, to take a really hard look at the significance of the upcoming elections and political transition and what that means for afghanistan's future and the unity of the country and of the body politic. we are already working on that in consultations with members of the international community and with afghans across the political and civil society spectrum. it's something that i regard as a key element and a key task for

all of us who are interested in afghanistan's future in getting the concept right, the way forward in afghanistan has to be one of a political process, including, hopefully in due course, the taliban or elements of there. it -- thereof. it cannot be a future that resorts to internal conflict or based on conflict between various -- armed conflict between various elements -- >> do we have sufficient leverage, ways in which we could increase our initiatives in that regard? are we kind of locked in because of the drawdown? >> i think the -- our leverage is quite substantial. i think the logic is there. i think afghans across a broad

spectrum see that there is a tremendous amount at stake in the coming years. we will still have a crucial role in all the elements of our strategy, political, military, and economic. the international community more broadly. one of the core messages that comes out of all of these meetings and discussions that we have been having, most clearly at tokyo, is that afghans international partners are actually united behind the proposition that the political process going forward needs to be credible and needs to produce a peace nul transition. -- peaceful transition. >> thank you very much, ambassador. thank you both of you and look forward to seeing you out there. senator lugar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would just say at the beginning that i'm very pleased

that you, ambassador cunningham, and you ambassador olson, are willing to undertake these responsibilities. i have confidence in both of you and confirmation process offers us an opportunity for us to discuss pakistan and afghanistan to obtain more information for our committee and for the public. ambassador olson, i want to raise this question broadly. according to recent state department reports on terrorism, deadly brutal attacks within pakistan itself amounted to well over 3,000 pakistanis killed in the year 2011 alone. the threat of haven't militant groups is pervasive. no part of pakistan is spared. suicide and armed attacks occurred in the coastal city of karachi, peshawar, as well as

the tribal areas adjoining afghanistan. how does the pakistani government and the people classify this threat? how has the pakistan government worked to arrest the internal threat to life and government institutions these terrorist groups represent? and to what extent can you distinguish between our efforts, the united states efforts, to support their efforts to combat internal terror threats and the regional threat emanating from pakistan's safe havens that is our primary concern? >> thank you, senator lugar. i agree entirely with your assessment about the nature of the challenge that pakistan faces internally. and i think we have seen a great shift in the government to pakistan's approach over the past few years to dealing with the internal threat that is represented by the terrorist groups. that you described.

there was a time in the not-too-distant past when the pakistani army was primarily deployed along the frontier with india. it is now very heavily deployed internally and especially in the area around the provinces to deal with the insurgent threat. of course i think we are all familiar with the counter insurgency operation in swat a few years ago. i think we have recognized and indeed supported this change and thanks to the generosity of the congress, we have a variety of funding meck niches, providing security -- meck niches, providing -- mechanisms, providing security forces,

counter insurgency operations, moving them away from a focus on heavy armor towards lighter counterinsurgency operations. there have been challenges with the security assistance program, but i will look forward to working with you and members of other committees to see what we can do to remove some of the obstacles and move forward on this important assistance programs. >> all of that here laettner our program schedule. also in the c-span video lie brarery. u.s. house just minutes away. they'll come in and do one minute speeches. briefly, back at 3:30 for legislative work. 19 bills today. including preventive abuse of government credit cards and bill that would ban adorgses in the district of columbia after 20 weeks of pregnancy. live house coverage coming up here on c-span. and for a look at what else is happening this week in congress, we spoke to a capitol hill reporter this morning on "washington journal."

host: i want to get to the congressle schedule in the next four -- congress congressional schedule in the next four days. we are joined by alec of the hill, staff writer with the hill newspaper. thanks for joining us. congress is getting out of town here on friday. they are faced with a looming government shutdown if the -- if they don't extend or have a new budget in place before september 30. what's the news on funding of the government? >> they are not going to take up any exsended stopgap funding measure this -- extended stopgap funding measure this week. that will wait until september. the funding for the government ends at the end of september. there was thought perhaps this could be taken off the table as an issue before the august recess, that's not going to happen. instead the senate's going to work on cybersecurity legislation and the house will work on farm legislation and extension of the bush tax cuts.

so that means we could see a spending showdown in september. but i don't think it's all that ugly. speaker boehner has talked about sakes-month extension that would fund the government into the spring of next year. and senate majority leader harry reid has indicated some support for that. there is so much to be done at the end of the year. specifically looking at the extension of the bush tax cuts and averting the automatic spending cuts in the is he questionser, leaders -- see quester, leaders don't want the added headache of the looming government shutdown at the end of the year if funding runs out. host: how much time does it give congress to-deal with that issue when they get back from the august recess? a lease than a month because the democratic convention in charlotte is the first week in september. so the -- congress will be back the week of september 10.

they only have a few weeks to deal with this. if they don't get it wrapped up by the end of september they could do a short-term, one week extension but people are itching to get out of town to get on the campaign trail. lawmakers don't want to spend too much time here in october. host: what if they said they are going to get done this week? you talked about cybersecurity being on the list. we'll talk about that later. what else? >> in the senate, cybersecurity legislation is on the floor. there is a democratic bill, i won't say democratic bill, a bill sponsored by senator joe lieberman called the spiber security act. there is a republican bill sponsored by john mccain and kay bailey hutchison, the secure i.t. act. we are going to see some amendments to the bill. senator -- >> from this morning's "washington journal." the u.s. house about to gavel in. 19 bills on the agenda today. legislative work at 3:30

eastern. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain. chaplain conroy: grant them the generosity to serve you as you deserved. to give of the industry and not count the cost and fight for their convictions and not heed the political wounds, to tylenol and not seek to rest, to labor and not ask for reward except for knowing that in being their bestselves they do your will and, dear, god, on this day we ask your blessing on the family of tim. grant them peace and consolation as they mourn the loss of his mother. may all that is done be for

your greater honor and glory. amen. . soap the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from north carolina, physical fox. ms. foxx: please join me in the i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america to our wonderful flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to suspend the rules and address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. the president's policies have failed and are making the economy worse. since president obama took office, we have seen a 52% increase in completed regulations deemed, quote, economically significant, end quote.

which means they cost the economy at least $100 million a year. we can't create a fair system for job creators when the government keeps changing the rules. we can't help the job seeker by punishing the job creator with more government red tape. how can someone who believes that small business owners didn't even build their own businesses understand the effects of red tape? he can't. that is why house republicans passed the red tape reduction and small business job creation act. a combination of pro-growth bills aimed at cutting red tape to make it easier for small businesses to create more jobs. in order to grow more jobs for the american people, mr. speaker, we need to streamline the amount of red tape coming from washington. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? without objection. mr. courtney: mr. speaker, in exactly five months time, the tax rates for every tax filer

in to country will go up. the so-called fiscal cliff, which most mainstream economists believe will push our country back into a double dip recession. there is hope, however. last week u.s. senate passed a measure which protects the income of every tax filer up to $250,000 and allows rates for income above that point to return to the clin ton era rate. this is a plan that will protect 90% from any tax increase. help balance the budget. and will give confidence to the financial markets who are terrified of the inability of this town to get its business done. we should act on the senate's plan in the house republican leadership have a choice. let's compromise, let's get something done. let's help the economy or push this country into brinksmanship for the last year and a half has been a trademark for the 112th congress. we can do better as the house of representatives. let's pass the senate measure.

let's provide some confidence for the american people and u.s. economy to grow. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker in a recent opinion piece, jeffrey december, the acting director for the office of management and budget wrote, quote, as president barack obama has said many times, the see quester -- sequester wasn't meant to be implemented, it was designed to cut so deep just threatening them would force congress to meet and agree on big balance package of deficit reduction, end of quote. if the president actually believed the budget control act would destroy jobs and threaten our national security, why did he sign the legislation into law? additionally, if he believed the proposed cuts would frighten members of congress, why has he remained silent on this issue?

house republicans have acted and passed bipartisan legislation several times replacing the see quester -- sequester with responsible reforms as well as calling for more government transparency, to stop the destruction of 200,000 jobs in virginia alone. i urge the president to support this bill to promote peace through strength. in conclusion, god bless our troops, we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? without objection. ms. sanchez: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize and celebrate the achievement of have iet and daley, they are celebrating their 20th anniversary in the vietnamese american community. for 20 years it has served its readers with comprehensive news, current affairs, and

information from the broader community and from vietnam. the daily news is also for the vietnamese people to preserve the language and cultural values through the writing on america award initiative. this is a writing competition that they hold every year that allows the vietnamese american community to write short stories about their experiences, whether they are experiences coming over from vietnam, or experiences here. and they judge it, they have winners, and then they make a compilation of these written stories and it's for the archives, the future, for their community to understand where they come from and it's also for the broader american community to understand. so i would like to congratulate all of the winners and participants of the 2012 writing on america and teen

writing awards for submitting so many, many incredible stories, some of which i have the heavy opportunity to read. again, congratulations to your staff and the dead case for the community on the 20th anniversary. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, as a physician, now as a legislator, i frankly do not understand the way our government continues to treat those who care for america's patients. earlier this month i introduced legislation, h.r. 6142, to provide a one-year extension

for medicare physician rates. this allows patients to continue to have access to their physicians in the next year. this is no mystery. we all know the last patch is going to expire december 31. we all know that before december 31 of this year, somehow we'll cobble together and provide another patch. why not do that now? why make them wait until the deadline? they can't plan. they can't grow their practice. they can't expand because they don't know what the government is going to do to them. further compounding the problem this year is the specker of sequestration that occurs january 1. -- secretarier of sequestration that occurs january 1. let's do the right thing. we could pass this bill under suspension this afternoon. we could provide our nation's physicians the stability and certainty that they need to continue to see the patients we have asked them to serve. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from northern mariana islands seek recognition?

without objection. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, here's a story to make us all cheer. 46 high school musicians from the area raised a quarter of a million dollars to go to london even perform during the olympics. where they win a silver medal. this is the story of the concert band who played their hearts out at the london celebration music festival this week in westminster. we are all cheering in the northern mariana islands because they represent us all. we are the only u.s. insular area that did not send athletes to london. we send our student musicians' they came away with silver. it took bake sales, rummage sales, a bowling tournament, tree plantings, car washes, radio telethon, lunches and raffles. it took bases, governments, civic organization, and individuals -- because this

keeps get us to dream. 10 years ago there was no high school band. most families could not afford to buy an instrument. today through the faith, effort, and determination of the students we are all inspired, confirming the belief that there is no better investment than in our children. congratulations. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker -- force mr. dreier: august 22 is a very important date. august 22 is the date that russia will become a member of the world trade organization. it's a done deal. both houses of the russian parliament have passed it and it's been agreed to. and i point to this day because there are many who believe that as we look at a vote on

permanent normal trade relations with russia that will be on the who are ayeson -- horizon, we are not going to be able to do it this week. we'll do it shortly after we come back in september, there are some who believe we are playing a role in getting russia into the world trade organization. that is not the case. that's not the case. all we are saying, mr. speaker, is that since russia is already going to be a member, will be as of august 22ed in of the world trade organization, we want -- 2 nd of the world trade organization, we want to make sure u.s. workers and business will have the opportunity to have access to the 140 million consumers in russia. so, mr. speaker, it's important for us to note the question is o not important russia will be a member of the w.t.o., i believe that our access will play a role in undermining the policies of putin, the question is are we going to get our western values into russia? we need to say yes.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house communications. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. until july 26, 2012, pursuant to section 3307 of title 40 united states code, the committee on transportation and infrastructure met in open session to consider resolutions to authorize 12 leads prospect tuss including the general services administration, g.s.a., f.y. 2011 and f.y. 2012 capital investment and leasing programs. cilp and one resolution to authorize the exercise of a purchase option on currently leased space for $14 million below fair market value. our committee continues to work to cut waste in the cost of federal property and leases. the resolutions approved by the committee will save the taxpayer $10.3 million annually, or $178 million over

the terps of the leases. these resolutions ensure savings through lower rent, avoiding holdover penalties, and efficiencies created through a kohl sol days. in addition the committee has included uteleation requirements and each of the resolutions to ensure agencies are held to appropriate utilization rates. i have enclosed copies of the resolutions apropped by -- adopted by the committee on transportation and infrastructure on july 26, 2012. signed sincerely, john l. mica, chairman. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee appropriations. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately

>> they include tax reform, the expiring 2001, 2003 tax breaks. that will be on c-span3. >> we have to be clear about the very many ways that we own ourselves and we own our history and that we make decisions that our history is phenomenal, vital and special. >> the former president of bennett college, julianne malveaux writes on african-american history. and this sunday your questions, calls, emails and tweets for the author of "surviving and thriving: 365 facts in black economic history." julianne malveaux on c-span's

"book tv." >> earlier today, a group of african-american pastors opposed same-sex marriage. held a press conference in washington. they called president obama's support for same-sex marriage "disgraceful and shameful." the president announced in may that he supports same-sex marriage. and this year's democratic national platform will have gay marriage included. this is 35s minutes. >> i want to thank all of you for coming out to this news conference today. i'm the founder and president of the coalition of african-american pastors. standing with my wife and our baby, dr. beb owens, my son, reverendoens. and pastor jackson, all of the pastors that are with us today.

they came in support of our effort to save the family. marriage should be between a man and a woman. the time has come for a broad base of -- assault against the powers that be that want to change our culture to one of men marrying men and women marrying women. we wrote the president and mr. holder may 2 requesting an audience with him to discuss this very issue. he has not given us the courtesy of any reply. the coalition of african-american pastors consist of 3,742 african-american pastors, and he has totally ignored us, he has not given us the pleasure of even answering our request,

which is very discourteous and unprofessional, first of all. also, the president has ignored the black community because he feels he has us in his pockets. we are not in his pocket. and because he's black, we refuse to give him a pass. we will announce a program very soon called the mandate for marriage, and i've asked my son, william, bishop of los angeles, california, to head that group up while we go across this country asking people to support us in our efforts to save the family. with all of the challenges and the problems facing the african-american community, we have the lowest scores in

education, we have fewer jobs, the prisons are full of african-american men, there are more men in prison than in college. go to any courtroom, u.s.a., each day and you will see those courts full of black men on their way to prison, but they have chosen something to cater to the homosexual community, to cater to hollywood, to cater to the big money people. they've chosen that course and just ignored the people that put the president where he is. the president is in the white house because of the civil rights movement, and i was the leader in that movement and i didn't march one inch, one foot, one yard for a man to marry a man and for a woman to marry a woman. so the president has forgotten the price that was paid, where people died, where they suffered, where they gave their

blood to have equal rights in the united states. and for the homosexual community and for the president to bow to the money as judus did for jesus christ is a shame. we will not take it back, we will not back down. we are going to take action across this country to change the course of this president is carrying us in. as an example, some people are saying because the position that chick-fil-a has taken, they don't want them in their city. it's a disgrace. it's the same thing that happened when i was marching for civil rights when they didn't want a black to come into their restaurant, they didn't want us staying in their hotels. now they're saying because we take a christian position, they don't want us in our cities. well, we won't take it. we will stand up, and they will learn, they will learn that

they can't do that to any people by destroying religion, by destroying the family. it won't happen on our watch. we will stand up. so we must employ new methods -- [applause] by starting this mandate for marriage to protect the family. families of all colors. mothers, how will you feel one year, 10 years, 15, 20 years from now and that little beautiful girl you reared comes and tells you, mother, i want a wedding, father, i want a wedding, i want you to give me away, a wedding, and she's going to marry a woman? your heart will be broken. so think about what you're doing by giving the president a pass. in this arena, in this fight by saying it's ok because we are black and you're black and we're going to -- mr. president, i'm not going to stand with you. and there are thousands of

others across this country that are not going to stand with you with this foolishness. plaws -- [applause] so we would like to conclude by saying -- bring some more speakers up, that we want people to go on our website, 100,000 signatures, the -- 1000 00signatures4marriage.com. let the president know he has not done a smart thing and it might cost him the election. he did it because of money and he thinks there is more black people, more people that want marriage to be right than there are homosexuals, i assure you, in this country and i think he's going to learn his lesson.

so we hope in the end, what do you hope to happen? i would hope that the president would become wise, come to his senses and know he's made the mistake and we can come back together and admit he made a mistake. all people made mistakes. he made a bad mistake that will affect the history of this country. i am shamed that the first black president chose this road, a disgraceful road. [applause] it is is a disgraceful road that he chose a road to endorse same sex. it's unnatural. it's unscriptural, it's not natural for a woman to have a woman. it's not natural for a man to have a man. if god had intended that he would have made a third sex. he did not do that. so we want the president to know we will oppose his position.

until the end, until the last day, we will oppose his position. now, i would like to present with you -- my son is going to head up our mandate for marriage campaign that we will start this week to get across the country and get people involved. just speak for a second. >> first off, i want to thank my dad for taking such a bold and historic position. i myself celebrate 27 years of marriage in october, and that's to one woman at one time. we have four children, 20, 22, 24 and 26, and he's led by example and i thank god for that. i'm excited about heading up the marriage for mandate. you can learn more at themarriagefourmandate.com. it gives people a chance to express their values and express why marriage is important to them. we will be taking this to the road and we will also be teaching people the value of marriage and giving people a

chance to express why they believe as we believe. there will be more information coming. also a book. again, you can learn more at themarriagefourmandate.com. thank you. >> thank you, william jr. now we will have janice of philadelphia, pennsylvania. >> thank you and good morning. i'm really privileged to be here this morning with dr. owens and the coalition of african-american pastors, and, of course, i'm the presiding prelayed of covenant fellowship churches in pennsylvania. and i just think this is a traffic vessey in terms of the -- traffic vessey -- travesty of the road that our commander in chief has taken. i'm glad that dr. owens started this particular mandate to call order to where we have disorder in the highest office in the land. and i'm privileged to stand with you, dr. owens, to support with you in whatever way i can in pennsylvania since

pennsylvania is a swing state. and the president needs to know that he has demonstrated such a direlection of duty because he touted himself as a great broad thinker, a person who can have a conversation with anyone but yet he has chosen -- selectively he has chosen to overlook this intellectual body of black leaders, and we take grave offense to that and he needs to know that he does not have a past, as dr. owens earlier stated, and we will hold him to the fire. because at some point you got to make it known what you stand for, and he's been all over the charts on many things. and we know that this particular position is a political one, and we are offended. thank you. >> thank you, dr. hollis. now we call bishop nouton to the stand from los angeles, california, representing bishop george mckenny, who is on our

board. >> thank you, dr. owens. it's a privilege to be here. bishop charles nouton, bishop of the church of god and christ. in order for us to really understand what has taken place here, we must define what marriage is. for biblical point of view, the union of a male and a female constitutes a marriage that make a whole life between a husband and a wife. the bible said that marriage is honorable at state with god. in genesis, god made in his creation order. he made things which were good. he made the light and he said that was good. he made the water. he said that the water was good. he made the trees and the plant life and he said it was good. everything god made he said was good. when he got to man he made man, and he looked at man and he said, it's not good for man to be alone.

i will make him a help mate. in genesis, second chapter, he put man to sleep and made a woman. he did not make another man. but he made a woman. and man and woman can only, and i repeat this, a man and a woman can only supply in full feel the need that is lacking in each other. so same-sex marriage is impossible to fulfill the need in each other. it might last for a while, but to really fulfill the need that god had planted in man, it has to be a man and a woman. jesus reiterated that in matthew when he said that a man should plea to his wife and that means male and female. it's impossible for a man to be a wife, and a woman to be a husband. again, in the book said he shall leave his father and mother and plead his wife, not his partner, but his wife and they shall be one.

i'm here to support this movement, and i thank you very much. we do -- if we marry and do things the way that the bible's principles and guidelines, it will strengthen our family and not weaken our family. i believe that same-sex marriage will weaken our family. thank you very much. god bless. >> thank you. bishop neal of germany. thank my friend, pastor -- reverend nelson has come in. another very important point i think should be made is if you watch the men who have been caught having sex with little boys, you will note that all of them will say that i was molested as a child. a man molested me in my home.

wherever. they will say -- they were molested. and the president, to condone this type of thing, knowing the full facts, is just irresponsible. reverend nelson, do you have something to say? >> good morning. as stated my name is reverend dean nelson. i serve as chairman for the fredrick douglass foundation. it is a christian political organization that advocates for righteousness and justice, liberty and virtue. dr. martin luther king jr. once stated that if the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal it becomes an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority. i believe that the challenge before the black church today is whether or not we want to become that irrelevant social club or if we want to recapture

the prophetic voice that we once had. i stand today with this great coalition to affirm our position on traditional marriage. it is our belief that marriage is between one man and one woman and is the right of marriage should only be afforded to those for whom it was originally intended. the fredrick douglass foundation was the lead participant in north carolina that helped to see large numbers of african-americans come to the polls and to affirm traditional marriage there in the great state of north carolina. we also have plans throughout our 19 states that we have chapters to push and to challenge the african-american clergy to stand for righteousness and justice and to affirm traditional marriage and just as in 1980 when the southern baptist had to

relinquish their support for one of their own, jimmy carter, when he ran against -- when he was serving as president and running against ronald reagan. we're challenging the african-american community to re-evaluate its strong, wholehearted support for president obama. because this issue is more than just politics. this is a moral issue that the church must stand for and be clear about, not just for this generation but for generations to come. we believe that this election is a pivotal election and that those who hold the bible as sacred and those, particularly black americans who are part of the democrat party, must re-evaluate today whether or not they will stand for biblical principles over political policy.

it is our hope that many within the black community will stand with the word of god, will stand with truth and will become a strong independent voice for the soul of america. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, reverend nelson. we want to make it very clear that we are not democrats and we are not republicans. this is not a political party. this is not the platform of any political party. it is our conscience. now, one big difference between the civil rights movement and the movement of today to endorse same-sex marriage is when we were in the civil rights movement we were -- most of us were very poor. black people were very poor. but they voted with that theme. they marched, they walked and they let their voice be heard and turned this country around. we are asking black america again to step up to the bat and do what you need to do. we do not endorse a candidate.

we do not -- we do say vote for what is right, what is scriptural and what is honorable and we don't want america to go down the drain starting on a slippery slope with a black president. it might look good today. he might be famous today. he might be popular today, but when your children come and tell you they're going to marry a person of the same sex you are going to be very happy and you are going to be very angry that you bit into the big lie. thank you very much. if there are any questions, i'm available. >> if president obama doesn't change his stance, is the coalition of african-american pastors willing to -- ready to support candidate mitt romney? >> we are not going to support any candidate. that is not our role. we are not political, but we are going to let our mission be known. our mission is to keep marriage between a man and a woman. we are not going to get into

the politics of it. we have a social issue that we're going to address, but not get in the political realm. >> what about your critics, critics and people who are against gay marriage and the administration says over and over again that they are -- it's a matter of homophobia, if you are in bigotry, if you don't let people love who they love? >> they called me that. well, what if i call them sissies and all of the other names that i could call them? i don't do that. we are not that. we just believe in what we believe and we stand for wt we see. don't put things on me if you don't want them put on you. >> reverend, what is the tradition on polygamy? >> i think you know about that. this is not polygamy. this is about same-sex marriage. >> i want you to defy the bib lick a.o.l. definition of --

biblical definition of marriage? >> between a man and woman. >> talk to me about abraham's marriage? >> madam, next question. next question. >> what is god's position on polygamy? >> what is -- next question. are you going to stand there and just demand that i answer your question? this is not about polygamy. this is about same-sex marriage. and i will not do any difference. >> reverend, answer questions about marriage. >> have her removed. yes, sir. >> in your words you said that president obama condones the -- >> i did not say that. >> caught having sex with little boys you will note that all of them said they were molested as a child. >> ok. let me clear that up. for him to condone same-sex marriage is the road to homosexuals being more able to

do it. i have never said that president obama condoned sex with a man and a boy. >> do you see a similarity between -- >> correlation, absolutely. a correlation. he's trying to make legal what is wrong. there's the correlation. there is absolute correlation. and if you really know where this is headed, where it's going, it will end -- this is just -- they are just opening the gate. there will be many more challenges facing our families if this stands. if you get -- and every state that this has been on the ballot and every state where it's been on the ballot, we have won. so people like the president and others have chosen to just take over and do what the people don't want done. they have not won in one state,

not one state. >> can you describe how the rights of homosexuals are different between african-americans in terms of civil rights? >> there is no comparison. when you were a boy you couldn't drink out of a white water fountain, you couldn't go to a white restaurant, you couldn't go to a white hotel. they have not been denied those rights. never. they do everything. we feel they should have the best job, they should have the best of everything but not marriage. >> i'm wondering how you respond to black clergy and christian groups who said there is more than one issue to consider? they may disagree with president obama, as you do, on this issue but they say they agree with him on other issues. >> well, i might agree on some other issues also, but there's not one issue more important than holding the family together. it doesn't make any difference if you have a lot of money, live in a big house, have a fine physician. if your family's destroyed,

what does it mean? >> thank you. in a very recent p.r. survey, 18% of african-americans said that same-sex marriage is a critical issue, putting it below the economy, education, wealth gap and immigration. do you think this issue is something that african-americans can get behind even though the numbers say that many don't put it up to the top five important issues in this election? >> i think so. that's the reason we are going across the country. the same question was asked in the civil rights movement. i was a junior pastor in 1957, and we went to a restaurant. we had to go to the back door and carry the food out. and the pastor stood in that -- in that back little room where we were waiting for our food and said, your grandchildren will never be able to go in the front door of this restaurant. seven years later we were going in the front door. so we can revolutionize. we can make a difference if we join together. >> so a goal of yours would be

to that number, that 18% number of african-americans become higher? >> absolutely. >> do you think that's possible? >> i know it's possible. we are going to work very hard. >> why do you think that's not the case now? >> because we haven't been out there doing what we're doing now. they have heard one side. >> is the african-american community not aware of this? this is against their religious belief or values or you need to go out and explain that? >> i think they must be aware every time it's been voted, the african-american community has overwhelmingly voted against it. in every state. no exception in every state. but i think the african-american community must be made aware the damage and i think they are just looking at the fact that he's black, really half black, half white, they are just looking at that instead of what he's doing. he has ignored us. he's not only -- ignored the

black preachers, he's ignored the black press. when the civil rights movement was going on, the black press was a voice of the black community. most white presidents were against us. the black -- he's ignored them. he does not come to our conventions. he didn't go to the naacp convention, the church of which i am a member has over 600 members, he didn't come there. he goes to anything they want. but because he has us locked up, he doesn't have us locked up and we will voice that. >> 73% to 79% of african-american children were born out of wed lock, depending what study you look at, do you feel that the reason for such high out-of-wed lock birth is because the family has fallen apart because of gay marriage? >> no, not because of gay marriage. the family has fallen apart, one reason, is we tolerate it and we don't teach against it. i have a little baby and the

mother could have had an abortion but she didn't have an abortion. she chose to -- wanted us to be the parents. instead of our girls having abortions and children being born out of wed lock, the black -- and we have a' dressed this before this issue came up -- the black ministers must step up and say, if you don't want that little baby, there's somebody that will take care of that little baby and love that baby and our little baby has been the joy of our life. >> reverend, can you talk about what your coalition is doing to encourage black men to maintain the head of their household and not leave their children in single mother homes, the vast majority when we look at that particular statistic? >> absolutely. i'm glad you asked that question. i know what can be done to the black community. i started a ministry and the way i built my nationwide base was getting black young men in college. walked some out of prison.

and in four years we put 400 black students in a predominantly white university that had 5%. when we left it had 22.5%, and these were boys on the fringes. some had been to prison. we walked one young man out of prison who had been -- had served two years and was in court on another case. we convinced the judge to release him to us and the judge resentenced that young man to a degree from the university where we were. yes, it can be done and we plan to do it and the black preacher has to do more than just talk about this, he has to talk about the home, he has to leave that pulpit and get in the community and love those girls, love those families. he has a great responsibility. >> what about civil unions? there are people that say, if not marriage, we will give them civil unions? >> it is no difference.

>> can i address your concern about how we intend to take -- how we intend to take the marriage mandate is to do just that. part of the purpose of the marriage mandate is not just to expose the wrong but to celebrate the right. part of the purpose of the marriage mandate is to equip those marriages and bring out the beauty of marriage. that's one of the reasons for the marriage mandate. >> clarification. can you talk a little bit about how many signatures have you gotten towards this 100,000 signatures, when did you start? you start this had a while ago, soon after the president's embrace. >> right. >> how far along are you on that? >> i don't have that number because, like when we have this news conference today and we give out the -- our website -- 100,000signatures4marriage.com. there is several thousand. my wife is not here. she keeps a count of that. i just do what i do. >> can you give us details

about the mandate project, what exactly are you guys doing? where are you going to be going? how big of a budget? have you guys fundraised this? >> we just started. we have our first fundraiser october 16. i mean, august 16. in memphis, tennessee. we just started. but we are going to go nationwide without agenda. just like the president has gone to hollywood, we are going to people to where it be $1, $100, $100,000, we are going to ask support because we need money to take this agenda nationwide. well, i'll take one more question. >> just a simple one. can you tell us your affiliation? you mentioned of being part of a larger church body. >> i am a member of the church of god and christ.

>> in your remarks, you said this is not a political event. in the press release it says you are looking for people to withdraw support of the president. you are doing this in 98 days until the election. clearly this is a political vacuum. can you tell me -- for people who are still remaining out there, did any of you support the president in 2008? >> i think most of us did. >> [inaudible] i did. >> and can the others respond? >> i'd be happy to respond. i did not support the president, but we do have a grassroots effort in north carolina where we have large numbers of people who have -- who supported the president but have withdrawn their support. and that's through the fredrick douglass foundation. >> are you talking about people will not vote for the president this fall because of this issue? >> well, for us specifically -- for us specifically, our challenge really is to ask

black americans to withhold their support, particularly those who are christians. however, as you may have noted, a month or so ago in north carolina there was a poll that showed that 20% of black americans said they were going to support governor romney so that wasn't an initiative we were pushing but there was a poll that came out that showed 20% of black americans in north carolina were going to vote for governor romney. >> thank y'all. that closes the news conference. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> you name it, all the nominations. but when you start going to the heads of the denominations get behind you, you get political. i don't need any more political -- >> got it. when is your first event that you say you're going across the nation? >> we're starting out -- it will be announced very soon. >> thank you. >> i asked you before but i

want to ask you again. i think maybe you could answer it -- the point is if you talk to people in the administration , they say that people who are against it, they don't talk about it in a moral context. they talk about it in a sense, well, they're homophobic, they're bigots. in other words, they don't bring up the matter of belief but it's a matter of bigotry and homophobia. in fact, at the international aids conference, i guess you know that african-american men who are homosexuals have the highest rates of aids infection. and the h.h.s. secretary, kathleen sebelius, said we need to educate people about homophobia, getting rid of aids. [inaudible]

it's a matter of them about not being homophobic. >> i am not homophobic. what if i called them what i could call them, we love them. we care for people. we are trying to save the marriage. you have homosexuals begins the beginning of time. there always have been homosexuals. we are not against people. we are against a change in the institution. >> ok, thank you. ing >> president obama will be on the road this week campaigning in ohio, florida and virginia. tomorrow the president's in mansfield and akron, ohio. on thursday he travels to orlando. then leesburg, virginia, for campaign events. back on capitol hill, the house returns this afternoon at 3:30

eastern to begin consideration of 19 bills, including preventing abuse of government credit cards and further limits on abortions in the district of columbia. votes at 6:30 eastern. live coverage here on c-span. the senate, meanwhile, is continuing work on their cybersecurity bill. we talked about that on this morning's "washington journal" and we'll show you as much of that conversation as we can until the house gavels in at 3:30. host: and we turn now to a debate in the senate over the proposed cybersecurity act of 2012. a debate that gregory for the center of democracy and technology argues is also about privacy. so please explain the sort of personal privacy component to this legislation that the senate is taking up today. guest: a major part of the legislation is about letting companies that provide you internet service to share

information with the government about the cybersecurity threats that they see in the internet traffic that goes over their networks. that's all about sharing email. it's about sharing your internet use. and so it's important to get the definitions right, to make sure that while these companies act to protect cybersecurity that they don't also share with the government personal information that's not needed for cybersecurity. host: if you want to talk about this cybersecurity act of 2012 or some of the personal privacy components we'll be talking about, give us a call. the democratic line is 202-737-0001. republicans, 202-737-0002. and independents, 202-628-0205. we'll show you some stats about the cybersecurity act of 2012, what it does and what it doesn't do. businesses deemed critical to national infrastructure would be asked to meet cybersecurity standards that are optional.

it also establishes a protocol for government agencies and business to share cybersecurity threat information with one another. so your group is concerned about the personal privacy component of this bill. i know it's evolved. tell us about where it stand now and if you support it. guest: well, we don't support it. right now the major problems with the bill are the breath of the authority it gives to companies to monitor their users' internet use and to deploy countermeasures. that means to block data, to modify data. they have to have the right reasons, cybersecurity, but the breath of the authority that's given gives us pause. it makes us wonder whether companies will be monitoring for any -- the way the bill is written, they monitor for any action that might result in something bad happening to data. well, that's a lot of actions. i mean, clicking on a link might result in something bad

happening to data, including data on your computer. so we're trying to make sure that when this legislation comes to the floor, there is an amendment process that will allow for votes on things like striking overbroad authorities, narrowing the bill and protecting it, some of the very good privacy protections that were put in recently by the sponsors of the legislation. host: i know you are not an expert from the security world but i want to talk a little bit about the threat that's out there or perceived threat. last friday the top u.s. military official in charge of defending the country against cyberattacks said there was a 17-fold increase of u.s. attacks in infrastructure between 2009 and 2011. this from "the new york times" via e.e. news. general keith alexander, who heads a national security agency, as well as the new u.s. cyber command gave what appears to be the first official assessment of the pace at which the country's electricity

grids, water supplies, pipelines and other infrastructure are coming under attack by hackers, criminal gangs and other nations. his comments came during an interview at the aspen security forum in aspen, colorado. host: does your group in studying this issue believe to be the situation is perhaps as dire as being represented there? guest: i think there's no doubt we have a serious cybersecurity problem that -- and we'll have to do something to make sure it doesn't get worse. i mean, you can read in the newspaper about a lot of stories where the government is losing sensitive information, including information about weapon systems, some companies are being hacked into and people's social security numbers are being revealed to

identity thieves. we have a problem and we believe that information sharing is part of the problem. it's not about whether we have a problem or companies need to share information, the fight is about whether we will preserve privacy while responding to that problem. host: i want you to read a little bit from president obama's editorial in "the wall street journal" talking about the depth of this problem. the headline is "in a future conflict, an adversary unable to match our military supremacy on the battlefield might exploit our vulnerabilities here at home."

host: we need to make it easier for companies with reasonable liability protection to share data and information with government when they're attacked and we need to make it easier for government, if asked, to help these companies prevent and recover from attacks. break down a few of those parts of the bill for us. perhaps the liability protection part first is maybe one of the more confusing parts to this. guest: so the liability protection appears in two parts. well, maybe more than two parts of the bill but primarily in two parts of the bill. one is to give companies liability protection if they share information so that they can't be sued for doing what the law permits. that makes some sense. of course it makes sense. and the other is to give companies -- whether to give

companies liability protection if they meet security standards that are set by a government private sector partnership entity. and there i think some of the companies are concerned that those standards could become effectively mandatory instead of voluntary because the liability protections would only kick in if the companies met the standards and there's some concern that without the liability protections that there would actually be a creation of liability whether there wasn't liability before. so i think there's some legitimate concerns about whether to have an entity that would in essence be setting the standards. i have to add, there are a lot of entities right now that are not a centralized approach that are setting security standards. and companies work with these entities now and there are a lot of standards out there.

one wouldn't want for a cybersecurity bill to end up preempting a lot of standards that are already doing a lot of good work. this section has been particularly controversial. we haven't followed it as much as the business sector has, and even today and even today there are negotiations about how to approach this problem. host: what happens if industry doesn't want to comply? they talk about senator lieberman who sponsored this bill, has talked about they've taken away the mandatory aspect of this bill, what happen it's if an industry doesn't comply with this bill? guest: if it doesn't comply it doesn't get protection for punitive damages, if somebody gets hurt downstream by a cyberattack that maybe could have been prevented had they complide. they don't get first in line for sharing of threat information from the government, and they don't get

first in line for assistance from the government when something goes wrong with their information. those latter two incentives, if you will, i think really we ought to think twice about them. it's kind of like saying, it's like the police saying, we're going to protect your neighborhood better if you will use these certified dead bolts on your doors and if you don't use them, we're not going to patrol your neighborhood as much as we would another neighborhood. that doesn't seem a very good approach to cybersecurity. if a company is operating critical intrato -- infrastructure, it ought to be getting the threat information from the government first and everybody ought to be getting it first enstead of their being -- instead of there being only discrimination about whether a company complied with the voluntary standards or not. >> let's turn to senator lieberman who spoke recently about the changes he made to the bill and its effectiveness.

[video clip] the fact that there will be standards, private sector generated, approved by a governmental body, i think will create tremendous inducements, even maybe pressure on c.e.o.'s and private operators of critical cyberinfrastructure to adopt those standards and implement them in their business or else, god forbid new york case of attack, they will be subject to enormous, probably corporation-ending liability. host: that was senator joseph lieberman on the senate floor, talking about the bill he is co-sponsoring with suzanne collins, republican from maine. we go now for a few questions

on this issue with our guest. bill is waiting on the democratic line from omaha, nebraska. good morning, bill. caller: my question is really an observation. is there such a thing as privacy anymore if such an entity as you are describing is created, aren't they essentially going to have all the information? and this may be something that is just going to happen with the advance of technology that everything is going to be known by certain individuals and we can have jobs -- i'm sorry, laws that make us feel better that we're being protected but the reality is, that information is out there and there are going to be certain powerful individuals who can make use of it, just as there are certain crazy vedges who can hack their way in now. thank you and i'll wait for your response. guest: certainly, privacy is challenged bthe advances in technology but the answer to

that problem is not to throw up our hands but rather to make sure the laws keep up with technology. one of the amendment that the senate may consider is one to update the electronic communications privacy act. right now, under that law, if an email message is sitting in your inbox for 180 days, it's available to the government with a subpoena. most people don't know that. they think the government has to go to court and get an order and prove proximate cause to a judge. we're try -- prove probable cause to a judge. we're trying to update that statute and this amendment would go a long way toward that update. host: and another bill now, in hartford, connecticut, on the republican line. you're on. caller: good morning. what constitutes a cyberattack? every time i mess up a

password, is that a cyberattack? or if my wife messes up three or four of them and gets locked out, or somebody fast fingers a u.r.l. and ends up in the wrong place, are those cyberattacks? guest: no, i don't think those are cyberattacks. it's an effort to render data unavailable. i think the bill does a good job of defining what a cyberattack is. i think it does a good job of defining the kinds of information , the threat indicators that must be determined to prevent cyberattacks. >> these are cyberthreat information that they specifically talk about in that bill, do you want to run through what some of those are? guest: it's defined

functionally so if there's an effort to overcome a control to limit access to data, that's a threat indicator. overcoming an operational control. a phishing attack. it's the scribed in neutral language but if you see a phishing attack, that's an indicator. one of the big issues congress will face is that information is shared with the government, what can the goth use it for? can it use it to prosecute a person for a crime completely unrelated to cybersecurity? can it dump the data? a lot of it is going to be personally identifiable. can it dump the data into a database and then mine it to figure out on whom to serve a national security letter or who to wiretap to get more information? it's these secondary, noncybersecurity issues of information that concern us a lot. and the most recent version of

the bill, response to those concerns are effectively, an amendment that senator mccain has asked to be considered, would roll the clock back and make it so that the cybersecurity program effectively turns into a back door wiretapping program. >> when you say it concerns us, explain we -- host: when you say concerns us, explain what the security for cybersecurity and democracy is? guest: we're a group that talks about security on the internet, we've been involved in cybersecurity ever since the first cybersecurity bill in which the proponents had proposed what became known as the internet kill switch. that provision is no longer on the table. it's been -- i think the sponsors agree it was a bad idea. host: what would it have done? guest: it would have given the president the power to order this stoppage or limitation of

internet communications coming to, from, or over critical infrastructure. since critical infrastrubblingture will probably include internet back bone systems, we and others fought the internet kill switch. host: do other versions of this legislation out there have that kill switch still as part of it? i know the house is considering a bill and there's a competing senate version, correct? guest: no other bill that's pending has that feature. kill switch is -- the kill switch has been killed. host: let's go to marco on the independent line from new york, new york. you're on. caller: i'm a subject matter expert in cybersecurity, how do you feel about anonymous situations? host: i think we lost you there, marco. we'll try to go -- try to get

him back. let's go to allen on the democrat exline from palm beach, florida. allen, are you there? caller: i have a question dealing with psychological profiling on the internet, which is happening currently. also, how the internet was used here in florida, for example for example, with redigitting, where they left out key components in the software to prevent gerrymandering which is how the -- how we have elections held here. that's my question, how the government can get in and manipulate our elections and our psychological profiling. thank you. guest: i don't think either of those issues are addressed at all in the legislation. honestly, i'm not sure what the

psychological profiling is about. really this bill is about whether and the extent to which the government will be involved in providing security for computer networks and about the extent to which companies will be sharing personally identifiable information with the government. i've got to say that the tissue there's going to be some amendments on the senate floor that could significantly change the legislation. -- one would substitute, the republican bill, called secure i.t., for the democratic bill. if that amendment passes, there would be -- that would create the back door wiretapping program that i mentioned earlier because it would allow the government to use information collected for cybersecurity reasons for other reasons such as intelligence surveillance and for criminal law enforcement. so that's one of the amendments that people should be watching.

host: a followup question on the idea of the internet kill switch. guest: just to be clear, that shab stripped out. in the old bills, an order from the president to stop communications, i think that nobody knew the extent of the effect that would have on international communication. that was one of the reasons that it was ultimately not agreed to. host: let's go to fort lauderdale, florida, this morning on the republican line. you're on with many nojeim. caller: i'm very concerned about people voting online because my identity was stole ven, i'm sure there's many people out there that can know how to get into the computer and manipulate it. and the other thing i want to

talk about is, i think the reason president clinton is going to speak wednesday is, i think biden is going to drop out and he's going to be introducing his wife as the next vice-presidential candidate for obama. host: let's talk about the data schefft issue she brought up at the beginning. guest: those are cybersecurity issues, they're not big national security issues, they're not about a foreign government placing a worm in a defense contractor's network and ex-filtrating secret information. but everyday people, everybody who uses the internet, has to be concerned about cybersecurity. you want to be able to know that when you click on a link, it's safe to do that. when you send an email message and click -- or receive an email message and click on an

attachment, that it's safe to do that. it's important that companies be able to do what they do now to help ensure that when you're surfing on the internet or communicating with other people, you're not going to have a problem with your computer. those are all cybersecurity matters. they're not the big national security issues but they are everyday cybersecurity issues that people have to be concerned about. one issue within the legislation on this information sharing idea is that if a company sees something on its network and suspects that it might be something that other companies are seeing on their networks and that ts problematic, it makes sense to allow them to share that information. part of the legislation is about taking reasonable -- a reasonable approach to allowing that sharing to occur. host: this from twitter:

host: i want to bring up one other issue you had with this bill, at least in its original form, or perhaps it's still there, concern about a military agency overseeing this cybersecurity initiative as opposed to a civilian agency. can you tell us about that? guest: there's been a debate in washington for a long time about whether the national security agency or the department of homeland security would have primary responsibility for cybersecurity. if cybersecurity goes to n.s.a. and companies are sharing information directly with the national security agency, a consequence of that will be that nobody knows what is happening to their personal information. companies won't know what information, what was tone with the information they shared with the government, consumers won't know what was done with their information when companies shared it with the

government. it will decrease trust and trust is essential to the cybersecurity program. now the n.s.a. operates secretly for good reason. but in this context, where there's going to be a direct interfate between a government and private sector companies that hold all of this sense tiff consumer data, it makes sense that the governmental entity that would receive the information from the private sector be a civilian, transparent entity instead of a military intelligence entity. the department of homeland security does the best job in government in informing people about what it's up to. it issues these privacy impact assessments that are very detailed and that give a lot of visibility into what it's doing. i haven't seen that kind of privacy impact assessment from an intelligence agency like the n.s.a. and we wouldn't if the

n.s.a. took over this program. host: john mccain a republican, disagrees with you on that. he is quoted in "wired," in an article, saying the cybersecurity bill is ineffective without n.s.a. monitoring. guest: the threat is not always a national security problem. the cybersecurity issues being dealt with in this legislation include everyday things like information about -- virus sharing, it's just not the case

that all cybersecurity is a military or intelligence function. now that said, what would happen under the lieberman-collins bill is that information would be shared with the department of homeland security, it would come from the private sector and then d.h.s. would decide whether that information has a national security link and must be shared with the n.s.a. the alternative to that is having companies that might not know make that decision. i think it makes more sense to have d.h.s. in that position than them. host: and from the independent line this morning. caller: i have two points, maybe a question. i think history has shown that the goth doesn't have any ability to keep sensitive information and not use it for its own purposes.

and you can see that right now with the current administration and with others that, you know they leak certain information if they feel it's in their benefit. so i think that those less -- the less information the government has about people, the better off we're all going to be. and the second thing that -- the thing i'm really concerned about is what identifies a threat. for example, right now, there's an issue going on with chick-fil -- with chik-fil-a, because of the religious beliefs of the owner. a lot of people perceive that as a threat. i'm afraid the government will take the information they have available to them and mine it and use it to persecute an individual. guest: the caller raises two good points. the first, the flow of

information to the government. right now, the leading cybersecurity bill tilts the scales so that information is more likely to flow to the government than company to company. now about 85% of critical infrastructure is owned by the private sector. and a lot of people believe that what is needed most, the company information sharing instead of the -- is the company-to-company information sharing, instead of the company-to-government information sharing. we would suggest that the legislation be mod many fied so that company-to-company information sharing is put on an even keel with company-to-government information schafering. the way that would happen is equalize the liability protection for companies that share with their peers as opposed to sharing with an exchange that is likely to be operated by the government. the other issue was about secondary use of information.

that is one of the biggest issues in the legislation. to our mean, our view, information that is shared with the government for cybersecurity reasons should be used by the government for no other reason. and we would include in the cybersecurity basket the prosecution of a cybersecurity crime. so if, for example, a threat indicator shows that somebody illegally hacked into a spuret, we certainly should be able to prosecute the person for that illegal hacking, for that computer crime. what secure i.t. does, that's the republican alternative to the cybersecurity act, it says the government could prosecute not just the computer crimes with the information it gets but could prosecute any of the hundreds of crimes that have predicates for wiretap. some of those are not so serious. and a lot of those are nothing to do with cybersecurity. should the government be able

to use information, share it for cybersecurity reasons, prosecute tax fraud, prosecute an immigration violation, prosecute someone for making a fake i.d. all of those are crimes under the secure i.d. act -- secure i.t. act that could be prosecuted with information shared for completely different reason related to cybersecurity. host: goetze go to adam in baltimore, maryland, waiting on the democratic line. you're on "washington journal" this morning. caller: good morning. i guess my comment is, i understand your concern with privacy, but wouldn't you concede that even if the government does use secondary information they find by pursuing a cybercrime investigation that find other criminal evidence, don't you think that's a good thing? wouldn't you concede that if they can stop a child pornographer on the internet or some kind of other heinous crime that's being stored on someone's personal files and the government can stop that, wouldn't you concede that's a

good thing and not a bad thing? i understand your concern with privacy, it just seems to me if we can catch someone in a cybercrime and go to their information and see what other things they're up to, that -- i understand your concern with privacy but i think it's a double edged sword, where it's both useful -- guest: here's how i think it would play out in real life. say there was a computer attack. the government could prosecute the person for the cybercrime. it could in connection with that prosecution, it might seize the person's computer, if they believe that the computer contained evidence of that crime. if in seizing that computer, it found evidence of other crimes, those crimes could also be prosecuted. the issue really is whether it be information that companies share for cybersecurity reasons is itself going to be turned over for other noncybersecurity prosecution.

the lieberman-collins bill, does allow, in addition to the cybersecurity crime prosecution cuses, does allow sharing of information to law enforcement to protect children from serious crimes and from serious injury and to protect, including psychological injury, and to protect everybody from immediate threats of physical harm. i think that those are pretty good protections and are pretty good -- a pretty good compromise in this area. host: the go from oversight of g.o.p. on twitter. guest: it's separate legislation. it's been introduced. i'm not sure where it's going

to go. i don't think that this legislation is going to cover that issue. host: has it been introduced in both the senate and the house or is it a one-chamber effort? guest: the white house has its own privacy bill of rights and members are looking at that and seeing what can be moved. businesses have an interest in it, as to consumers. i think that's on a separate track. host: to new jersey, pat on the republican line. caller: fwoorning. i have two questions and i'll take my answer -- i'll hang up and give you a chance to answer me. because we need phone lines to do this, isn't it necessary to go through the courts? is this what this bill is trying to avoid? and second, i get emails, you cannot believe. if i opened one or two of them,

maybe three days in a row, that interested the government, would that put me on a list that made it necessary for them to rip my life apart on the internet? thank you. guest: i don't think that the government is worried about you opening two or three emails. but i do want to focus on your first question a little more carefully. normally when the government wants to get the kind of information that this bill would allow companies to share with it, wants to compel access to that information, it has to go -- in front of a judge, prove probable cause and get a court order. and the court order is served on the provider, the provider turns the information over. this concept is captured in the wiretap act and in the electronic communications privacy act.

what the bill does is pre-event those laws. it says even if a warrant would normally be required, we're going to create a new rule for sign security. no warrants required, no ed of crime is required. insteading panes can voluntarily share this information with the government even if a privacy law would overs protect it. in that world, where all the privacy laws are preempted, it's critically important to make sure that the pre-enchings -- pre-emption is as narrow as possible so it's only used for cybersecurity reasons and to protect people from threat. host: right wing on twitter is looking further down the road. guest: i think there's an issue. normally the fourth amendment kicks in when the government

mandates a disclosure. when it conducts a search. in this case, the companies can volunteer the information to the government. and the government can't compel. in that world, the fourth amendment doesn't offer much protection. if there's protection, it has to be in a statute. host: to douglas now on the independent line. caller: good morning. i do have a comment. i think there might be a natural solution developing about privacy for the individuals. and that is, myself and a lot of our elderly population are already canceling our sub scrigses to the internet and conversing with each other. i know this will be a long time developing but with all the

hacking and worrying about bank accounts and so forth, many of us are just eliminating our internet subscriptions altogether. i do have a question, though. i know this will take a long time but how far, with technology developing, is there any other enroads on commune keags in the future besides internet conversing? i'll listen to the answer offline. guest: internet use is actually going up. more and more people are getting broadband and more and more people are using the internet to communicate with friends and family. to buy products. to conduct business. the internet is not going away. what we need to do is to make sure that as we use the internet, we can use it safely and we can use it with some level of privacy.

there are new challenges to technology and some of them are coming from the government. for example, the federal bureau of investigation has been telling congress that it is, quote, going dark because some new forms of communications, like peer-to-peer communications, like skype, are harder for it to wiretap than our regular phone calls. if -- it's asking congress whether it would consider legislation to make it easier for the f.b.i. to wiretap those communications. to build in back doors so the f.b.i. could get access. well, that's a cybersecurity problem in itself. i mean if the f.b.i. can get access through a back door that the company is required to build in, so can the bad guys. so there are some new technological challenges and there are some proposed

solutions to those challenges that would make our cybersecurity worse, not better. host: to ogden, utah, austin is on the republican line. caller: good morning, c-span. hey, listen, as far as privacy on the internet nowadays, we all ought to know there's no such thing as privacy on the internet. you get a facility in utah build by the n.s.a. that is massive in scope, probably has the capability of pretty much monitoring all communications, traffic, just about on planet earth and storing that information indefinitely. >> we take you lye to the house next, 19 bills up for debate including a measure aimed at --

record votes will be postponed -- record votes on postponed questions will be taken later today. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: senate 679, an act to reduce the number of executive positions subject to senate confirmation. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chaffetz: the need for reforms in the federal appointment process is not a new topic. there's little dispute that the current nominations process has grown too cumbersome and too complicated, discouraging individuals from seeking appointments. only 35 of the 100 most needed leadership roles were fulfilled in the first 100 days of the

new administration. 200 days into a new administration, only 50% of key national security officials are actually in place. nine special commissions have called for fixing the broken presidential appointments process starting with the presidential transition and personnel planning earlier, reducing the number of appointments requiring senate confirmations. senate bill 679 provides a commonsense solution that preserves the role but unburdens the process by releaving the advice and consent requirement for less critical positions. the bill is based on a bipartisan senate working group commission to approve the nominations process which was led by senators alexander and shumer. senate bill 679 eliminates the requirement for senate confirmation for a number of executive branch positions, many are below the assistant secretary level and report to a senate confirmed individual, two, do not make policy or, three, are members of the part-time advisory board or

commission. senate bill it also establishes an executive branch working group for the paperwork required for working groups. it requires a fixed five-year term for the director of the census bureau to coincide with the planning and operational phasing of the census. the director of the census bureau remains subject to confirmation. it provides an -- a mechanism to enstaal leaders in key positions to -- install leders in key positions. mrs. maloney: this bill will improve the presidential appointment process by reducing the number of presidentially

appointed positions that are required to be confirmed by the senate. the number of presidentially appointed positions that require senate confirmation has increased over the years. the congressional research service estimates that at the beginning of the oba uh ma administration there were 1,215 branch positions subject to senate confirmation. it takes months for a new president to fill these positions and make the resulting gaps in leadership -- and the resulting gaps in leadership makes the government les efficient and less productive. this bill will retaos the bureaucracy and red tape that comes with requiring the senate to confirm presidential appoint -- appointments. under this bill, high profile positions such as department secretaries and deputy secretaries will continue to require the consent of the senate. this bill impacts lower level

positions which a president routinely fills these positions without any controversy. for example, this bill would eliminate the senate confirmation requirement for positions such as the alternate federal co-chair of the appalachian regional commission. and member os they have national council on disabilities. in addition to reforming the presidential rea appointments process they can legislation before us today makes the director of the census bureau a presidential term appointment of five years, subject to confirmation by the senate. i morely am pleased the bill includes this provision -- provision so that the director is tied to the needs of the census and not to an election year calendar. for years i have been work on this provision which i proposed in h.r. 4595 in the 111th congress to assure that the --

that they are able to perform the census as accurately as possible. senator harper added this amendment to this bill we are considering today. too often in the last four desenalls there have been major operations issues to overcome just before implementation. historically, it's not uncommon for the bureau to be without a director to lead the agency until shorltly before the desen -- decennial. we did not have a direct yor in place for the 2010 count until months before the census day. in 2000, the census director took office two years before the census count and in 1990, it was one week before the count this change will help to ensure the independence of the accept us is bureau from political interference and ensure adequate leadership for

the census in critical planning and implementation phases for the decennial. data and analysis if the census bureau provides policymakers with vital, accurate, seen tisk information used to guide our country's economic growth. it's important that bureau leadership have stability. so i thank the chairman and ranking members for getting this done. the senate passed this bill with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. i believe this body should defer to the well of the senate when it comes to their own process for confirming presidential appointments. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this good government bill. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gohmert: with due deference to my friend from new york and my friend from utah, and i do mean that literally, i rise in opposition to this bill. what we've seen over the last year and a half is a presidency that had the most disdain for congress and the confirmation process of any president i'm aware of and i'm quite familiar with our history of the united states. not only as this president -- has this president made recess appointment when there was no recess, not only has this president appointed czars that were beyond the reach of congress, although we could have made it within our reach, we could have just cut off every dime for anything that did not come before congressional approval, but with this latest tactic of

having a recess appointment when there wasn't a recess, all the talk across the country about the appointing of czars with no accountability to the senate, i realy did expect some of my conservative friends in the senate at some point to move a bill on this subject, i expected it to be a bill that would send a loud and clear message to the president that if you feel like some of these don't need to be appointed, come talk to us about it and let's talk about no more recess appointments. let's talk about some of these others. instead, it's almost a pat on the back to the president to say, look, you've ignored us, you've made us irrelevant, you've done all of these things through, as you've said, congress won't act, so you're going to act, the president has gone out and made speeches and -- like a king or see sar, as i

-- or caesar, as i speak, so it is the law. even the -- even though the congress passed immigration law, the president spoke and made the law and ignored congress completely. the message we're sending back here is, mr. president, thank you, may i have another. you keep ignoring us, we'll keep making ourselves more and more irrelevant. i'd like to make one other point, too. here we are in a desperate situation, where our military, our very national security, is at risk for being cut to the extent that we will no longer be secure. i would only submit that a better bill would be, plment, if these are not all that important, let's get rid of all of these. there are board members, there's commission -- there's things in here, there's a

director of the women's bureau, i don't see one for the men's bureau, there's director of all kinds of things here that it just seems like are redundant, that could be done away with, if they're not important enough for the senate to take a look at them, mr. speaker, i would humbly suggest that maybe they're irrelevant and immaterial enough that we just do away with the positions and accordingly, i urge my colleagues to vote no on this provision. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. maloney: yield myself such time as i may consume. i respectfully disagree with my good friend from the great state of texas, representative gohmert. the number of executive branch positions subject to senate confirmation has grown at a very large number and it literally takes months to fill these positions and the resulting gaps in leadership

makes the government less efficient and less productive. it came to us with a strong bipartisan vote in the senate and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i will be under the general leave -- -- under general leave inserting a couple of letters, one the former secretary of defense under reagan, which says in part, leaving posts vacant is not smart management and a threat to national security. also i've noted concern of former senator fred thompson who took a position on this that says, i believe this will result in encreasing narrow pool of public servants who are more likely to be wealthy and live in the washington, d.c.

area, that is if we don't pass this piece of legislation. he said in 1960, president kennedy had 286 positions to fill, secretaries, undersecretaries and administrator. by the end of the clinton administration, there were 914 positions with these titles. there's an argument to say a lot of these positions shouldn't be in the federal government but nevertheless, under the constitution, the constitution says under the article 2, section 2, the appointments clause, i'll cut right to the phrase i'd like to refer to, which is congress may by law vest the appointments of such inferior officers as they think proper. therefore, as i read the constitution, we have a duty and responsibility to review this and look at this. so here we have a situation where 79 senators in a very bipartisan way came together after nine different commissions and looking at things and the sided to turn it back -- trim it back a little bit. there'll still be over 1,000 senate-confirmed positions.

but if we want proper oversight, if we want to go through this process in a swift and timely manner, if we want oversight, let's focus on what's most important. what's most important probably doesn't require senate confirmation for the assistant secretaries for public affairs. how about the administrator of st. lawrence sea way development corporation or the national council on disabilities? or the office of navajo and hoe pee -- and hopi relocation. while these are important to our nation and some would argue vital they probably don't rise to the level that require senate confirmation. they should not just be used as political tools, this nation has business at hand. we should focus on what's important. there are still more than 1,000 appointments that will require senate confirmation. let's listen to our leagues in the senate. 79 of them came together and said we think this is good. there have been nine different

commissions looking at this. it still allows for advice and consent under the senate, it is a duty under the constitution to to this with that, i encourage adoption. i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has yielded back the balance of her time. thank you, mr. speaker. i think it's common sense. it's what our frnds in the senate is asking -- friends in the senate is asking us to do with 79 senators coming to county to urge adoption of this and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house pass senate bill 769. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, -- the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: i would ask that a recorded vote be had, the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman request the yeas and nays? mr. gohmert: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays

will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4365 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4365, a bill to amend title 5, united states code, to make clear that accounts in the thrift savings fund are subject to certain federal tax levies. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chaffetz: i now would like to actually yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from new york, the prime sponsor and author of this legislation, ms. buerkle.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. buerkle: i thank the chair for recognizing me. i rise in support of my legislation, h.r. 4365, which would make thrift saving plans federal to tax levies. currently these accounts are not listed in the i.r.s. crode provisions, identifying property that is exempt from tax. this bill makes clear that the t.f.t. accounts are to be treated the savings as 401-k and similar retirement accounts held by private sector employees. this bill is about fairness, mr. speaker. it will treat federal employees the same as private sector employees. h.r. 4365 adds needed clarification to existing law and provides guidance to the thrift board on how to honor i.r.s. levies as they arise. in 2010, the office of legal counsel at the department of justice concluded that t.s.f.'s are subject to levy and last week the retirement board,

which oversees these accounts, wrote congress asking this issue be clarified expeditiously noting that the lack of clarity is causing significant operational issues. at the end of 2010, mr. speaker, the most recent year for which i.r.s. data is available, 279,000 federal employees owned -- owed $3.4 billion in federal taxes, and the joint committee on taxation estimates that enacting this legislation would increase revenues by $24 million over the 2012-2022 period. mr. speaker, $24 million may seem like a small figure inside -- to some inside the beltway. however, i believe that any savings congress can produce in today's fiscal environment is significant. this is a commonsense solution which received bipartisan support in the house oversight and government reform committee . similar legislation also

received overwhelming support in the senate. i urge passage of this bill and i yield back my time. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: thank you. mr. speaker, as a member of the committee on oversight and government reform, i am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of h.r. 4365, a bill to amend title 5 of the united states code to make clear that accounts in the thrift savings fund are subject to federal tax levies. current law authorizes the internal revenue service to levy private sector 401-k retirement plans in order to collect unpaid federal taxes. however, due to an existing ambiguity between the internal revenue code and the authorizing statute for the federal thrift savings plan, the i.r.s. is unable to garnish

t.s.p. accounts to recover unpaid taxes from federal employees and members of congress. in light of this statutory confusion, the thrift savings plan's executive director requested clarification from our committee back in july of 2011 as to whether the t.s.p.'s should honor federal levies on t.s.p. fund accounts. h.r. 4365 would simply ensure that federal t.s.p. accounts and private sector 401-k plans receive equal treatment in the area of tax administration and enforcement by amending the t.s.p. authorizing statute to make clear that t.s.p. fund accounts are in fact subject to federal tax levies by the i.r.s. in addition, pursuant to an amendment offered by our distinguished ranking member, mr. cummings of maryland, and

included in the bill as reported by our committee, any potential revenue derived from the enactment of h.r. 4365 may be used only for the purpose of deficit reduction. in supporting this bill, i would note that the vast majority of our public servants pay their taxes in a responsible and timely manner. in fact, according to the most recent i.r.s. statistics, the tax delinquency rate amongst federal employees in 2010 was 3.33%, far lower than that of the general public. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this reasonable legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i have no additional speakers. i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. maloney: i have no additional speakers. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, it's a good, commonsense piece of legislation. i urge its adoption and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the suspend the rules and pass -- will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4365. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. and i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of saking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. does the gentlelady -- for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass senate bill 300

as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate bill 300, to prevent abuse of government charge cards. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chaffetz: senate bill 300 puts commonsense controls under the users of government charge cards which allows federal workers to purchase goods and travel in a timely and cost efficient manner. in any economy, but especially the one we are in now, there's no room for waste, much less fraud and abuse. these safeguards will make all users of federal charge cards accountable for their use. while the use of charge cards have saved the federal government both time and money compared to a paper reimbursement system, some have

abused their travel card privileges resulting in unnecessary fraudulent expenses. numerous g.a.o. reports have called for additional support for this. g.a.o. estimated that nearly 41% of purchase card transactions failed to meet basic internal control standards. senator grassley put the spotlight on the problem of use for decades and the g.a.o. has documented fraudulent purchases made by federal workers with these cards, including jewelry, gambling, cruises and even a tab at a gentleman's club. government charge cards were used to pay for the infamous g.s.a. western regional conference. the oversight committee was able to work in a bipartisan basis with the armed services committee to bring senator grassley's bill, senate bill 300, to the floor today. the bill brings needed accountability to the process by which federal government manages charge cards used by federal employees. senate bill 300 requires agencies to improve their

internal controls for government charge cards. it is based largely on the g.a.o.'s recommendations for preventing waste, fraud and abuse. the resulting safeguards will avoid the waste of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on fraudulent or questionable purchases. the controls will help ensure the federal government benefits from rebates available from charge card vendors for prompt payment. senate bill 300 requires agencies inspectors' general to perform audits to identify potential abuse of government charge cards. the bill also requires agencies to take appropriate disciplinary action, including removal, from federal employees who misuse charge cards. this provision responds to the g.a.o.'s investigation that found inconsistent or nonexistent consequences for federal employees who abuse these charge card privileges. i will be placing into the record a jurisdictional exchange of letters between the committee on armed services and the committee on oversight and government reform. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. maloney: the serious fiscal challenges facing the federal government demand that agencies do everything they can to operate as efficiently as possible. the federal government spends billions annually through its purchase card program using purchase cards and the convenience checks to acquire millions of items. everything from paper and pencils to computers and to make payments on government contracts for a variety of goods and services such as vehicles and relocation services. the primary responsibility for purchasing these items rest with cardholders and the officials who approve their purchases. because of the position of public trust held by federal

employees, congress and the american people expect cardholders and approving officials to maintain stewardship over the federal funds at their disposal. specifically, purchase cardholders and approving officials are expected to follow published acquisition requirements and exercise a standard of care in acquiring goods and services that is necessary and reasonable for the proper operation of an agency. because every federal dollar that is spent on fraudulent, improper and abusive purchases is a dollar that cannot be used for necessary government goods and services, ensuring that purchase cards are used responsibly is a particular concern at a time when the united states is experiencing substantial fiscal challenges. i strongly support senator grassley's bill on which he has worked many years, s. 300,

because the legislation will require agencies to establish internal control activities over travel and charge cards. agencies will be able to perform credit checks on potential recipients of travel cards. agencies will also be able to appropriately discipline employees who misuse charge cards, including termination of their employment. most importantly, this legislation will keep agencies accountable for charge card misuse because the inspectors' general of each agency will be required to examine charge card use twice a year and report any violations to the office of management and budget. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i have no additional speakers. i'm prepared to yield back. mrs. maloney: i have no

additional speakers. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i appreciate the great work senator grassley's done on this bill. i urge its adoption. i think we can do so in a bipartisan way and urge a yes vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate bill 300 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mrs. maloney: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. maloney: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 828 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 828, a bill to amend title 5, united states code, to provide that persons having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be ineligible for federal employment. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. . most every federal employee i've run into are good, hardworking, patriotic people trying to do the right thing. but unfortunately, we have a few that really aren't doing the right thing. i want to highlight a problem we see out there and while there are those federal employees that are delinquent on their federal taxes. now this becomes egregious, i think, because of the nature of their employment. they're working for the federal government, they're being paid by the federal taxpayers, yet they're not paying their own federal taxes. unfortunately, over the course

of time, the situation has not gotten better. there are people who are dealing with difficult situation, they have adopted, or something, somehow in their life they've goten upside down. the nature and spirit of this bill, the bill i'm the chief sponsor on is to find the people who are trying to do the right thing, trying to rectify it, trying to come up with a plan, we're not going after those people. but for the other group of people, who are just totally ignoring the law and they're not living up to their obligation, not paying their federal taxes, there ought to be more of a consequence. the number of delinquent federal tax employees has remained fairly consistent since the year 2004. remarkably, there are 102,794 employees who were delinquent with their federal taxes back in 2004. fast forward to 2010, that number is still 98,291. in fact, nearly 700 people on

capitol hill are delinquent on their federal taxes. unfortunately, the dollar amount of these delinquencies from 2004, which was $599.8 million, has grown to over $1 billion. in fact it's $1.-- it's $1.043 billion. unpaid taxes from federal employees. so employees who refuse to fulfill their obligations must be held accountable. this addressesen in clines -- noncompliance with our tax laws by prohibiting those who are severely delinquent with their tax debt from federal employment. most taxpayers file accurate tax returns and pay their taxes they owe on time, regardless of their income. federal employees and individuals applying for federal employment should do the same. always. in 2010, the most recent year for which the i.r.s. data is

available, more than 98,000 civilian federal employees owed more than $1 billion in taxes. the average delinquency rate was .33%. up from 2.92% in 2008. the vast majority of federal workers who owe taxes owe them for income they earned. the intent of this is, if you are a federal employer, you need to pay your taxes. under this bill, those having delinquent tax debts are ineligible for federal employment. quote serious dequin tent -- delinquent taxes, are those that are not being paid in

accord with an agreement. this does not include those for whom relief has been granted. we're not trying to cut somebody off at the knees if they're trying to do the right thing. the bill requires those applying for federal jobs to certify they are not seriously delinquent in their taxes. agencies will also conduct periodic reviews of public records for tax liens. and individuals may avail themselves of existing due process rights including before the merit protections court and they will have sex months to demonstrate that their tax debt is not, quote, seriously delinquent, end yet. it also provides a hardship exemption for employees. the federal -- federal employees are called to account for paying their taxes in the

code of eth exs in the executive brasm. it dick kates that federal employees must, quote, satisfy in good faith their obligations as citizens including all just financial obligations, especially those such as federal, state, or local taxes that are opposed by -- imposed by law. end quote. that's the necessity of this situation. unfortunately, it's getting worse, it's not getting better. we have an obligation, i think, to the american taxpayers and the overwhelming majority, the 96-plus percent of the federal workers doing the right thing. thus i urge adoption of this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. maloney: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. maloney: as chairman issa stated in the oversight committee's consideration of this bill, h.r. 828, he said this is largely a symbol exgesture. we all agree that everyone including federal workers should pay their taxes.

members on both sides of the aisle emphasize the need to hold federal employees accountable for tax obligations. however, the overwhelming majority of federal workers take their income tax obligation seriously. the tax compliance rate for frl employees is much higher than for the american public. according to the most recent statistics from the internal revenue service, more than 96% of federal workers paid their taxes on time and to not owe money to the government. in addition, there are existing laws and regulations that address tax debt owed by federal employees and the i.r.s. has a system in place for levying up to 15% of federal wage payments made to delinquent payers until the tax debt is satisfied. the joint committee on taxation

has concluded that h.r. 828 would have negligible impact on revenue. in fact, implementation of the bill would have a small cost. so i'm not certain that this bill will have any significant impact whatsoever. i strongly believe that the house's efforts and energy would be better spent on focusing on measures to strengthen the federal civil service and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the federal government rather than by making symbolic gestures that reinforce a negative view of the federal work force. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time of the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i yield myself such time as i may consume. there is a need for this. i wish there wasn't a need for this. there are other, more pressing things we should be focused on but this is $1 billion in uncollected taxes. i don't want to dispearge the reputation of all federal

workers but this small fwroup of them, in excess of 3% of our federal workers, is putting tarnishment on those other employees. i want to point to a january 23, 2012, federal eye article, ed o'teef is the author. let me -- ed o'keefe is the author. he said, quote, on capitol hill 684 mes, or almost 4% of the congressional staffers, owed tacks in 2010, a jump of 46 workers from 2009. 4% of house staffers owed $8.5 million and % of senate employees $2.1 million, the i.r.s. said. we actually get a report from the i.r.s. and it has -- it has a breakdown of the number of employees by department by which people aren't paying their federal taxes. the department of treasury have one of the lowest percentage, less than 1% of their employees don't pay their taxes but you still have 1,181 employees at

the department of treasury, there's an uncollected $9. million. at the federal reserve, the board of governors, smaller in terms of their numbers but still 91 employees, at the federal reserve, not paying their taxes. 4.86% of their employees not paying over $1.2 million in taxes. if you go and look, this is my personal favorite, the u.s. office of government eth exs has the worst compliance rate of our federal workers. you put that in a movie you wouldn't believe it. nearly 6.5% of their employees don't pay their federal taxes. the u.s. department of government ethics. unfortunately there is a need for this. i would like to highlight, we did this in a very bipartisan way within committee. there was an amendment offered by mr. lynch of massachusetts, who i have the greatest respect for. he offered an amendment, we accepted that. when we accepted that, he was

quoted as saying, and i quote from mr. lynch, without refinement here a friendly amendment, i would vote for the bill if the amendment were enclouded. end quote. i hope we can do this in a bipartisan way. we have an obligation and duty to do this. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. maloney: i have no additional speakers, i am prepared to yield back the balance of my time. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, let me say in conclusion -- the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlewoman yield back in mrs. maloney: i yield back. mr. chaffetz: if federal workers aren't paying their federal taxes, they should be feared. they should not be employed as federal workers. we have a duty and obligation. this is a billion-dollar problem in search of a solution. this is the solution. we should to so in a bipartisan way. i urge adoption of this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 828.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking the vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. fourth pr seedingsen this motion are ordered. -- are postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 1627. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1627, an act to

amend title 38, united states code to provide for certain requirements for the placement of monuments in arlington national cemetery and for other purposes. senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, and the gentleman from maine, mr. michaud, each will control 0 minutes. mr. miller: i ask nammings consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and add any extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. miller: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: as the chame of the house committee on veterans affairs, i rise in support of the senate amendment to h.r. 1627 this a comprehensive, bipartisan, bicameral legislative package to provide for the needs of veterans, their families and survivors through approved health care, housing, education and memorial services. in addition, the senate amendment to h.r. 1627 would improve the accountability and transparency of the department

of veterans' affairs ensuring that v.a. is responsible to those it serves, our american veterans. as the titetholve bill implies, this legislation would authorize v.a. health care services for veterans and their families for certain illnesses that manifested as a result of exposure to water contamination at camp lejeune, north carolina, during a 30-year span that ended in 1987. i want to specifically acknowledge the efforts of retired machine master sergeant jerry insminger whose dogged efforts to seek justice inspeared this bill. in honor of jerry's daughter janie who died of leukemia at the age of 9 after time spent at camp lejeune where the water was contaminated, title 1 of this bill bears her name. finally, i thank representative brad miller and senator burr,

the original sponsors of the bill in the house an senate for their leadership. though this legislation represents a hard-fought victory, we must not forget those who are no longer with us to see it become a law. i think when senator byrd said this, he said it best, unfortunately, who have been exposed have died as a result and are not here to receive the care this bill can povide. while i wish we could have accomplished this years ago, we have the opportunity to do the right thing for thousands who were harmed in their service to our country, end quote. i couldn't agree more. in addition to the veterans of camp rejune, section 106 of this bill contains legislation the chairwoman of the subcommittee on health ms. buerkle introduced h.r. 2074, the veterans sexual assault prevention act. the section and her bill which passed the house last year would address the serious failure of the department of

veterans' affairs to prevent and report sexual assault incidents and corresponding flaws in the security of their facilities. it creates a fundamentally safer environment for our veterans and v.a. employees by requiring an accountable and comprehensive oversight system. i want to express my personal appreciation to ms. buerkle for her advocacy on bhf of women and all our veterans. in just two short years, she has -- on behalf of women and all our veterans. in just two short years, she has proven herself to be a voice for veterans not only in new york but across the country. her experience as a nurse and mother of six was the reason i chose her as the chairwoman on the subcommittee on health. she has never waivered from doing what is right for all our veterans. the bill also includes several worthy legislative proposals to improve health care services brought forth from members on both sides of the aisles and in both chambers, the house and in

the senate. . it would allow for flexible payments, break down barriers to care for veterans with traumatic brain injury, clarify the access rights to service dogs on v.a. property and improve care for rural, elderly and homeless veterans. this bill also addresses several important matters related to veterans housing. because many of our returning wounded warriors need assistance modifying their residence just to meet their needs, this bill would re-authorize and expand several provisions relating to the especially adaptive housing grant program. these grants provide funding to eligible disabled veterans and service members to adapt homes that they own or homes that they are currently living in to meet their daily needs. adapt appingses can include grab bars in bathrooms, widening hallways or

constructing a wheelchair ramp. these are important to affording veterans they were accustomed to prior to injury and what they otherwise may not enjoy. far too many of our veterans found themselves on hard times and are homeless and at risk for homelessness. to combat this problem, this bill would authorize funding for additional housing options for homeless veterans to help them gain stability and obtain access to other treatment that services that they may need from v.a. the next area of the bill would be in addressing education. we all know that we have provided a very generous benefit to the veterans in the post-9/11 g.i. bill. the problem is that we have never really tracked the performance of the bill or at the ben -- if the benefits are effective in training veterans to be leaders of tomorrow. therefore, this legislation would increase our oversight of post-9/11 educational benefits by requiring annual reports to congress on the effectiveness

of these benefits and how they're being utilized. i want to thank my friend and congressman gus bilirakis for introducing this in h.r. 275 and for his leadership on improving transparency for the post-9/11 g.i. bill. another critical area addressed by this legislation is that of veteran benefits. over the last three years, we've seen the disability claims backlog grow exponentially. with more than 900,000 claims now waiting decisions, 50% of those have been pending for a period of 125 days or more. despite repeated promises from v.a. to break the backlog it continues to grow, therefore, the provision of this bill that address benefit matters will assist in pro processing claims more efficiently. first, it will allow veterans to automatically waive evidence submitted directly to the board of veterans appeals for claims in appellate status. second, it will allow veterans

in need of assistance with claims to have a signature on their behalf, a system -- assistant with the claims process. third, it would modernize v.a.'s statutory duty to assist by authorizing electronic communications, potentially saving weeks in a claim's processing time. fourth, to alleviate the burdens of rebundant paperwork, veterans would now be able to file jointly for social security and indemnity compensation. finally, to promote accountability of claims processors, v.a. would be required to present a report on how it will take corrective action when their employees need training to do their jobs well. i want to thank my friend, mr. runyan, on the subcommittee on disability assistance and memorial affairs for his dedication to our nation's veterans and his focus on advancing legislation such as h.r. 2349, that will achieve measurable results in alleviating the backlog of claims. now, many of these provisions that i discussed thus far from

focused on our efforts to honor our commitment to the brave men and women who serve our nation, including those transitioning from the recent conflicts in iraq and afghanistan, we must also continue our commitment to our fallen heroes. accordingly, this bill also sets out specific criteria that prohibits disruptions in protests of funerals of the armed forces at v.a. national sem tears and at -- sem fares and at arlington national cemetery, including the imposition of criminal and civil liability for violations of these restrictions. in addition, given the sacred nature of arlington national cemetery, a name synonymous for american freedom, this legislation would codify a prohibition on the grave sites of arlington national cemetery with very limited exceptions. i worked closely with mr. runyan on this prohibition to ensure that many future generations of american heroes

will be buried and honored at arlington national cemetery. and i want to thank him again for his leadership on this issue and for originally introducing h.r. 1484. similarly, i introduced the original measure on h.r. 1627 which would place restrictions on the type and placement of monuments at arlington national cemetery due to the fact that the cemetery itself is a monument. arlington national cemetery is a unique national treasure. it is for this reason that this legislation is necessary to ensure that the integrity of the cemetery is preserved. both in its utilization of land with the placement of monuments and with its allocation of grave sites. finally, this comprehensive package also contains several mills provisions affecting our nation's veterans. although they may not receive much attention such as health care or benefits, they are no

less important in improving the lives of the veterans of our country. i want to thank the ranking member, mr. filner, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the senate committee on veterans' affairs, senator murray and senator burr, for their insight and cooperation on advancing this bill, this compromised bill today. so i want to reiterate that this bill is paid for both in its mandatory and discretionary costs via offsets that have been used many times by this committee and historically has been supported by both sides of the aisle. and finally, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert a joint explanatory statement for the honoring america's veterans in caring for camp lejeune families act of 2012 into the record as well as a floor colloquy between myself and the gentleman from maine, mr. michaud. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. miller: i appreciate that, mr. speaker. once again, i thank all the members of the committee, the staff of the house and the

senate on veterans' affairs for their work on this bill and i urge all members to support the senate amendment to h.r. 1627. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. michaud: i rise today in strong support of h.r. 1627 as amended, the honoring american veterans and caring for our camp lejeune family act of 2012. this bill represents the hard work of both chambers and both sides of the aisle. i want to thank chairman miller and ranking member filner as well as senator murray and senator burr and all of my colleagues on the veterans' affairs committee in both chambers and all of the work that went into crafting this legislation. this bill provides health care benefits to veterans and family members who have suffered illnesses due to exposure to harmful chemicals through drinking contaminated water

while stationed at camp lejeune, north carolina. this bill also provides important improvement to enable the v.a. care for veterans living in the rural area. this represents over 40% of those seeking care at the v.a. the provisions include waiving the co-payments of veterans who use telehealth or telemedicine services, sacrificing v.a. to pay for travel benefits, the veterans seeking care at veterans -- at vet centers, requiring v.a. to establish and operate centers of excellence for rural health resource, education and clinical activities. and fainlly, requiring v.a. to create are a system of consultation and assessment of millennium health, traumatic brain injury and other conditions through teleconsultation.

a provision i'm particularly proud of will improve the care to provide for our elderly veterans, those that are 70% disabled or higher in our state veteran nursing homes. this bill makes improvements in the area of veterans' benefits and claims process. one such improvement, a provision based on the measure introduced by ranking member filner, enables a veteran or family member on an appeal to waive the current requirement that new evidence be first considered by the v.a. this provision would enable the board of veterans appeals to review evidence submitted directly to it instead of waiting for redecision at the agency level. this bill includes important housing provisions as well. one provision would help veterans with vision impairment and veterans residing temporarily in housing owned by a family member by aligning v.a.'s definition of blindness

with a definition of blindness under existing federal law. this bill also provides the amount made available to veterans receive a temporary resident adaptation grant are not counted against the maximum allowable under the specialty adapted housing program. also, this bill makes permanent the authority of the v.a. to guarantee adjustable rate and hybrid rate mortgages. mr. speaker, i've only highlighted a few of the important parts of this bill that were found in h.r. 1627 as amended, and i would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this very important veterans measure. thank you, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield as much time as she might consume, ms. buerkle of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for such time as she may consume.

ms. buerkle: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support to the senate amendment to h.r. 1627, the honoring american veterans and caring for camp lejeune families act of 2012. included in this bill are provisions that reflect the oversight work of the subcommittee on health of which i am honored to chair. central to the health care portion of this legislation is section 106 which would require the department of veterans affairs to develop and implement a agree hencive policy on the pre-- comprehensive on the tracking of sexual assaults and other safety instances that occur at v.a. medical facilities. this provision was originally passed in the house last year in h.r. 2074 as amended, the veterans sexual assault prevention act. i introduced this measure last year in response to a disturbing g.a.o. report which found that between 2007 and 2010 some 284 instances of

alleged sexual assault occurred in v.a. medical facilities around the country. as a former registered nurse and domestic violence counselor, i am all too familiar with the corrosive and harmful effects sexual and physical violence can have in the lives of its victims. abusive behavior like the kind documented by the g.a.o. is unacceptable, and for it to be found in what should be an environment of healing for our veterans is simply unforgiveable. this bill would establish and enforce critically important actions to correct the serious safety vulnerabilities, security problems and oversight failures by v.a. leadership that threatens the safety of veterans seeking care through the department and the hardworking employees who provide that care. i am confident that the comprehensive requirements mandated in this bill would resolve the deficiencies g.a.o. uncovered and ensure that the

v.a. health care system is a safe and secure place for our veterans and their families to seek care. i have been working fire yussly since last -- furiously since last october to get it through the senate and signed into law by the president. i am very pleased and relieved that the day has finally come and not a moment too soon for those who need it. however, my oversight does not stop at the president's desk. with this statement i am putting v.a. on notice that i will remain vigilant in ensuring that the legislation is implemented swiftly and -- as intended to protect veterans and employees at v.a. medical facilities. also included in this bill, mr. speaker, is a measure that would allow for greater flexibility in establishing rates for reimbursement to state homes for nursing home care provided to service-connected veterans. this proposal was also included in h.r. 2074. i want to thank the gentleman from maine and the ranking member of the subcommittee on health for his very hard work

in introducing this provision and the manner in which he continues to embody a true bipartisan spirit to advance legislation for the benefit of our veterans as well as their families. additionally, the bill includes a measure to expand the ability of worthy, not -- to obtain grants to provide services for homeless veterans. our colleague from the state of washington, dave reichert, has been a strong advocate for establishing these important enhancements and i am pleased that this provision he introduced is included in the bill. . ial pleased that this provision for which he has been a strong advocate is included. there have been so many amendments included for the health of veterans, establishing a beneficiary to

-- for fravel and providing medical care for certain veterans and their families who were exposed to contaminated water at camp lejeune. it's been an honor for more -- for me, mr. speaker, to work with my colleagues on this legislation. in familiar, i am grateful for the hard work and leadership of our chairman, mr. miller of florida. mr. speaker, i urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. i have no further comments and i yield back my time to the chame. tissue to the chair. -- to the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine. >> i would like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. dingell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dingell: i ask unanimous consent to advise and -- to

revise and extend my remarks. i rise in strong support of h.r. 1627, the honoring america's veterans and caring for camp lejeune families act. this is long overdue and the most note worthy thing that we could observe about the behavior of the military leadership is they have been uncooperative and have been most diligent in obfuscating the problem and seeing to it that the matter has been unduly dawdled over while our military personnel were put at risk and placed in position where their familyings also sheared that risk and hazard. i want to thank the chairman, mr. miller, the ranking member, mr. filner, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. boler and mr. michaud for the things they have done to see that justice is finally being done. the victims of the camp lejeune

disaster have waited too long for themselves and their family. with passage -- the passage of this legislation today is an important first step for moving forward and providing for the victims of a long and ongoing tragedy but it is also evidence that there is still a great need for us to see to it that the mill tear cooperates in these kinds of investigations and see that the military goes beyond that and conduct a cleanup of the military facilities where we send our military personnel and their families. in 2004, i conducted a series of investigations into this and other contamination problems as the ranking member of the house committee on energy and commerce. after meeting with the marine corps personnel and master sergeant jerry insminger whose

daughter died of a rare form of leukemia at the age of 9. i must confess i can come to no conclusion other than that was caused by where her father had been serving and the fact that the military had not been diligent in cleaning up etc. messes. these investigations reveal a great coverup and much foot dragging and obfuscation on the part of the department of the navy. they also showed other failures by the department of defense in other places including installations in foreign points of service like japan. with the passage of this bell, veterans are -- veterans of camp lejeune and their families who also served there are going to receive some measure of justice and help in addressing the problems they have because of where they were compelled to serve and because of lack of diligence on the part of the military to see that they were

properly keared for. and they will be eligible if they served between 1957 and 1987 to receive v.a. health benefits for illnesses connected with that contamination. while the passage of this legislation is a success we can know there's much more to be done. the veterans the serve the presumptions of the service connection in the bill to ensure that they receive important benefits to which they are due. that is simply a proper concern for our veterans and for their safety. they and their families should not be put at unnecessary risk by places that they serve solely by reason of the fact that they serve in a particular place and because of slothful, improper behavior by the department of defense higher ups and because of coverups in which they did not cooperate in saying -- in seeing to the proper safeguards of our federal employees and our

military personnel who were serving there involuntarily as part of their superb contribution to the safety of this nation. the fight continues and hopefully we continue to bring justice to the victims of camp lejeune and see to it that others of our military are not put at risk because of slothful, improper and dilatory behavior by the department of defense. i ask my colleagues here to understand our duty in seeing to it that the fam hes of our military and our military personnel are not put at risk by where they serve or by indifference and tissue by indifferent and careless behavior of their government the government has a duty not just to see to it that our military personnel are made whole but they have the duty to see to it that our military bases and military service are not put at risk by actions which make points of service of our military unnecessarily

risky because of contamination of the places where our military and their families live and work. but here we have another high duty and that is to see that the military person are kept safe at their -- with their families at their side at military bases. the military leadership has to recognize -- i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remark and i thank the gentleman for making this time available. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from florida. mr. smiller -- mr. miller: how much time do we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has nine minutes remain, the gentleman from maine has 11 minutes remaining. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise in strong support of

h.r. 1627. the bill is a product of bipartisan work to improve the lives of our veterans and their families. i'm very proud of sections 706 and 707 which contain pieces that i introduced. mr. stutzman: section 706 would punish those who falsely identify themselves as military or former military by being debarred for five years. and the debarment must be completed within 30 days. section 707 would require v.a. to provide a qualitierly report to congress on the cost of the department's conferences. every year, v.a. spends millions of dollars on conferences and while i understand the need for such

meetings, recent history is sufficient to demand an accounting so congress can provide proper oversight of such spending. section 707 would require v.a. to prereport on conferences costing $20,000 or more or on conferences attended by 50 or more people including throes one v.a. employee. it would also require v.a. to estimate the cost of conferences to be held during the quarter in which the report is provided. in closing, mr. speaker, for our veterans and their families, i urge my colleagues to support the senate amendment to h. reform 1627 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: the navy has known for 20 years that the water was

bad and they knew what chemicals were in it. they withheld information from the centers for disease control and from congress and they have shamefully failed to take responsibility for the contaminated water. we introduced companion bills two years ago to provide treatment for certain diseases associated with exposure to the water. that legislation is part of this bill. justice requires at least the benefits of the janie imsinger act provides. i thank chairman miller for bringing this to the floor and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: how many more speakers does mr. michaud have? mr. michaud: one more speaker and then we're prepared to

close. mr. miller: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i thank him for his work not just for veterans bills but also health and national security where he's been a leader. i rise in strong support of h.r. 1627 as amended, the honoring american veterans and caring for camp lejeune families act of 2012 and this represents the hard work of both sides of the aisle, i thank chairman miller, ranking member filner, as well as mr. michaud and representative miller from north carolina on our side that have been leaders on this issue. i am particularly proud to rise in support of this legislation to finally give medical coverage and justice to those

military families previously stationed at camp lejeune where for three decades, three decades, thousands of marines and their families consumed water contaminated with toxic chemicals that likely led to very serious illnesses. because of travesties like this, i offered an amendment to the 2012 defense authorization bill prohibiting the secrecy of information about water contamination on our military bases and why i asked secretary panetta for transparency to help strike the necessary balance between safeguarding our national interests and preventing another camp lejeune scandal from happening that endangers the health of our military families here on the soil of our country.

i strongly support this bill because this is a big step in making sure that our veterans are continuously cared for throughout their deployment and thereafter here at home and not put at risk for their health. i support the underlying bill and i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: with respect to the gentleman's request to have a colloquy inserted into the record, a colloquy cannot be inserted into the record, but two independent statements can be enserted into the record. mr. miller: we were waiting on one speaker who it looks like he's not going to make it. so we'll be prepared to close

after the gentleman. mr. michaud: the gentleman will be prepared to close after i give my closing remarks? thank you, mr. speaker. i'm particularly pleased with this package because it also includes legislation that i've been working on for well over two years that will ensure that our severely disabled and elderly veterans are able to get the care they need. specifically, my bill requires the v.a. to enter into contracts or provider agreements with state veterans' nursing homes in order to get the reimbursement that we adequately need to take care of our veterans. without this legislation, state veterans' homes will not get reimbursed properly for the services they provide for our veterans. according to data from the national association of state veteran's homes, the average rate for care is roughly $359 per veteran, per day, while the v.a. only reimbursed the home

$235 per day. this difference of $124 per day amounts to over $45,000 per year for each covered veteran. with approximately 25,000 beds nationwide, the financial burden on state veterans' homes would become crippling. passing this legislation into law will ensure that state veterans' homes are paid adequately for the services they provide and continue to serve our veterans that are in need of those services. i want to thank the chairman, mr. miller and ranking member filner for their support of this bill and for working to bring this legislation to the floor. our veterans will be better off as a result. i also would like to thank chairwoman buerkle for her efforts as well, working in a bipartisan manner, and staff on both the majority and minority side for bringing this bill

forward as well. so mr. speaker, i have no further speakers, and -- may i -- my question would be to mr. miller, he mentioned earlier about the colloquy, if those colloquies are entered separately, will that be part of the record? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. mr. miller: mr. speaker, if we could go ahead and do the colloquy at this time we'll make sure it's in the record. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine is recognized. mr. michaud: thank you. i'd like to ask my colleague about section 102 of the bill that provides medical care for certain medical condition for veterans and their families who live at camp lejeune from 1957 to 1987. there is one provision

applicable to family members where v.a. would reimburse family members for hark services provided under this section but only after they exhausted reasonable available alternative reimbursements. i wanted to ensure that this language is not read to mean that family members must file suit under the federal tort claims act or even come to the end of litigation under the suit filed under the federal tort claims act to ensure that medical care offered by this provision, can my colleague confirm this? mr. miller: mr. miller: the language which does appear in section 1787 parenb, parenc absolutely does not require that any suit be

filed under the federal tort claims act in order to secure this medical care as long as they meet the other requirements of the bill. as you have noticed, the provision only requires exhaustion of reasonably available remedies. in the legislation we are explicit we want this care to be provided for family members even though at the present time there is insufficient medical evidence to conclude that illnesses or conditions listed in the bill are attributable to those exposures. for this and other reasons surrounding litigation under the federal tort claims act, such as ftca remedy, can't be considered to be reasonably available. to require exhaustion under federal tort claims act would go completely against the intent of this piece of legislation and to make this medical care available to these family members for these conditions so long as v.a. is considered the final payer as far as other third party health plans.

mr. michaud: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman and i have no further speakers and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: i ask that the members support the senate amendment to h.r. 1627 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and concur to the senate amendments to h.r. 1627. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the senate amendments are agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek

recognition? mr. lamborn: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4073 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4073, a bill to authorize the secretary of agriculture to accept the quitclaim, disclaimer, and relinquishment of a railroad right of way within and adjacent to pike national forest in el paso county, colorado, originally granted to the mount manitou park and incline railway company pursuant to the act of march 3, 1875. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn, and the gentleman from northern mariana islands, mr. sablan, each will control 20s minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lamborn: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamborn: mr. speaker, today i am happy to speak in support of my legislation, h.r. 4073, a

bill to authorize the secretary of agriculture to accept the quitclaim, disclaimer and relinquishment of a railroad right of way within the pike national forest in my district. originally granted to the mount manitou park and incline company, it is part of the mount manitou scenic railway which was a cable car that put people up the rocky mountain pikes peak at 40% with some with a grade of 68%. today it's become a popular hike for adventure seekers in the pike's peak region and is said to be hiked half a million times each year, although access is considered trespassing. a citizens initiative begun eight years ago making access to this popular trail legal. although all parties are

ameanable due to enact dated march 3, 1875, the forest service has been unable to accept the quitclaim from the manitou and pike peak railway. they came to me and asked me to allow the forest service to accept the quitclaim, which is the last major hurdle in allowing the kline trail to be open -- incline trail to be open. no formal steps have been taken by any of the property owners to maintain the incline since 1997. legalizing access to the trail will allow the surrounding communities access to repair sections of the trail that are in poor condition and thus make the use safer for all hikers. it has been my pleasure to work with the interested parties in helping to gain legal access to this unique trail that i believe will be a wonderful addition to the region's trail inventory.

i would like to thank the forest service and senator michael bennett's office for their diligence in working with my office in this process. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from the northern mariana islands. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, h.r. 4073 clears up a deed for a popular hiking destination, the manitou incline in colorado. upon enactment, the pike national forest will have full ownership of the trail. we do not object to this legislation, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: does the gentleman have any other speakers? mr. sablan: no, we don't, mr. speaker. i'm ready to yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: mr. speaker, i

yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4073 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. sablan: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from the northern mariana islands. mr. sablan: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. lamborn: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3641 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 450, h.r. 3641, a bill to establish pinnacles national park in the state of california as a unit of the national park system, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn, and the gentleman from the northern mariana islands, mr. sablan, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all

members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lamborn: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamborn: h.r. 3641 renames pinnacles national monument as pinnacles national park. pinnacles was originally designated in 1908 by president roosevelt under the authority of the antiquities act. however, under this legislation it is not anticipated that management would change draw tcally as the area is already considered a unit of the national park service. the natural resources committee made important changes to h.r. 3641, allowing us to bring this to the floor today. for example, the committee removed a nearly 3,000 acre wilderness expansion and struck unnecessary land acquisition authority. with these changes, the goal of elevating recognition of the area as a national park is achieved without limiting access. at that, mr. speaker, i reserve

the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from the northern mariana islands. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sablan: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, president theodore roosevelt designated pinnacles national monument in california under the authority of the antiquities act of 1908. h.r. 3641 would redesignate the monument as the pinnacles national park. while the name change will not significantly alter management of the area, it would raise the profile of this beautiful resource and hopefully attract even more visitors. representative farr is to be commended for his tenacity in moving this legislation forward. he made some very difficult concessions for passage of this bill today and it is our hope we can continue working on this . his full vision of pinnacles national park, and i reserve

the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from the northern mariana islands. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, at this time i yield as much time he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. farr: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 3641, known as the pinnacles national park act. as sponsor of the bipartisan legislation, i'd also like to express my thanks to our friend and my -- my friend, congressman denham from california, for his original co-sponsorship of h.r. 3641. the pinnacles national park act will elevate america's 11th national monument, the pinnacles national monument, to a national park. only congress can designate a national park. this is the right thing to do because there are not a lot of

examples of tetonic plate movement in our national monuments. it would rename the current pinnacles wilderness after schuyler hayne, who first came to the area in 1886 and got the attention of president roosevelt first designated the monument in 1908. the first designation was to protect the beautiful rock formations of the taos caves, notable for its tunnels. it has since been expanded several times by executive order and congressional mandate to the present size of over 26,000 acres. it's larger that several existing national parks. pinnacles is culturally significant area for several native american tribes. it served as the backdrop for john ste nimbings beck's of mice and men" and "east of eden." from exploring caves and

exploring rock formations, visitors and families can participate in activities that leave lasting memories. it is truly worthy of national park status. the pinnacles themselves are half of what remains of the nenatch volcano which eripted 23 million years ago and are located at the junction of the pacific and northern american tetonic plates. the san andreas fall is four miles to the east and miner's gulch run through the pinnacles system. the pinnacles system is home to 149 species of birds, 49 mammals, 22 reptiles, six apple fibians, 68 butterflies, 36 dragon flies and damsle flies and nearly 400 different kinds of bees. i didn't know there were that many. and many thousands of invert bra. one area i am proud of is the